Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Double Standards

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the We Won thread someone who calls themselves rvb8 wrote:  “We do not accept the supernatural because we can’t test for that.”

Well.  Consider the following two statements:

  1. Supernatural phenomena exist.
  1. Natural phenomena are all that exist.

The two statements are mirror images are of one another.  If one is true the other is necessarily false.  They are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

And neither can be confirmed by test.

Notice the double standard here.  rvb8 rejects statement 1 on the sole ground that it cannot be tested.  But he affirms statement 2 (it is necessarily entailed by his statement) even though it cannot be tested either.  The incoherence of scientism is obvious.  Yet many cling to it in the teeth of its incoherence.  Look, I am not even trying to prove the existence of God or the supernatural.  That is a discussion for another day.  My purpose is modest:  Stop with the double standard already.

UPDATE: rvb8 doubles down

In comment 7 to the thread below this post, rvb8 responds with some doozies:

“And neither can be confirmed by test.” No Barry! One of these can be confirmed by testing, I’ll leave you and BA to figure out which.

Do tell.  OK rvb8, I’ll bite.  Please describe the test in which one would investigate every single phenomenon from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe to confirm that every one of those phenomena was natural.

“The two statements are miror images of one another.” No Barry! Something that does not exist cannot reflect an image because photons will not bounce off something that is not there.

Umm, the “mirror” was not an actual mirror.  Go to your dictionary and look up the word “metaphor.”

 

Comments
WJM: That’s one of the reasons I decided to reject atheism – there’s no hope in it. There’s literally nothing in it for me.
For the exact same reason I rejected Buddhism at some point. “What’s in it for me?” I asked my professor 36 years ago, who lectured about ‘nirvana’ and made it clear that in this state there is no personhood. He had no answer and I quickly lost interest. I still don’t understand people who are drawn to philosophical concepts without hope of continued personal existence. Should such a philosophy not be the very last option to adopt — with great reluctance I may add? Do we not owe it to ourselves and our loved ones to strive for a philosophy that accommodates our deepest desire for happiness? Should that not be the first possibility to be explored, with extreme determination if need be? What is more contemptible than the philosopher who has skipped such an attempt and freely devotes his life to the opposite: promoting some half-baked nihilistic story which boils down to death, despair and no hope?Origenes
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
However this spiritualist approach would leave you, at best on the margins of mainstream Christianity, or any faith, and at worst openly vilified. (No one likes wishy washy faith, in fact many Christians I know prefer my open atheism to your ephemeral dabbling.)
Our experience of Christians, then, is very different.
You say you rejected the cartoonish portrayal of the bible as a youth, good for you! Brought up a Catholic I still prefer, and read my King James. I recall the raisings, the multiplyings, the floatings, the casting outs, the partings, and many other tales and still love them. However in what way have they become less ‘cartoonish’ for you?
There are much better presentations of Christianity to be offered by Augustine or C.S. Lewis. On the whole, IMO Christian faith for the masses is a good thing because I just don't think everyone is capable of such rational and introspective analysis; for many, traditions, catechism and fellowship can guide most down a good, fulfilling life, even if some of that refers to irrationally held beliefs and hard-to-believe stories. I think such traditions foster faith, and faith in right and good principles is, in my worldview, extremely important. Prayer, visualization and focus are all terms in my worldview that refer to a communion with the divine that creates the world we experience, and I've seen the power of faith realize astounding results many, many times in my life. Let's not forget that there are also some very cartoonish depictions of atheism, as offered by Hitchins or Dawkins, which come off as no more than the anti-Christian-god rants of pre-teens. There are also much more profound atheistic authors who carry atheistic thought through to logical conclusions even they are loathe to admit - but which they steadfastedly do admit. That's one of the reasons I decided to reject atheism - there's no hope in it. There's literally nothing in it for me. Why spend my life believing something that doesn't gain me anything to believe? It doesn't make me smarter or braver or superior or less likely to die or get a disease. When I was an atheist, I held the view that I was smarter and braver than the masses who "needed god as a crutch", but really that was just a rather hamfisted way of trying to make myself feel superior. If atheism is true, what did my "bravery" or "superiority" matter? All it did was separate me from those I might love or be friends with because of a condescending attitude. I realized that the fact was that even though I didn't give the god I understood as a child any credit, I didn't know if there was a god of some sort or not. I realized I wanted to believe in god, if I could understand one worth believing in which didn't require me to suspend my reason or conscience. In my time as an atheist I ran across many atheists with the same attitude - they wished a god existed, one worth believing in. So, I've found a way of understanding a god that, for me, is well worth believing in, doesn't contradict my experience (and explains much of it), fits in with known facts and serves soundly as the premised basis for a contingent universe, an objective morality, miracles, stands well against the argument from evil, and also fits in well for the may and varied experiences people have of god and the supernatural. When it was all said and done, I looked back on my time as an atheist and wondered, why was I fighting these people? They're just like me, trying to understand their existence and make their way in world as best they can with the tools they have available. We're all brothers and sisters in this world trying to find our way. It's far better for me and my heart to find a way to embrace, love and find friendship than to commit to a negative portrayal of most people in the world. It's far better for me to have a view that fosters the hope that we are all spiritual equals in this world serving a purpose, where love and kindness serve a greater good beyond the corrupt machinations of governments and institutions; where I can feel confident that doing good is more important than anything else, even my own comfort and life. To have that, I require something more than mere evolution and happenstance culture. It may be a self-delusion, but if atheistic naturalism is true, so what? At the end of the ride, I'd rather have experienced a life of self-deluded purpose and hope in a existential good than see myself and actions in the world as nothing more than the happenstance interactions of purposeless chemistry. I just can't live under that sort of nihilistic framework - believe me, I've tried.William J Murray
June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
WJM, your view of God is complex indeed. (I always use upper case when referring to God and religions, just seems polite.) However this spiritualist approach would leave you, at best on the margins of mainstream Christianity, or any faith, and at worst openly vilified. (No one likes wishy washy faith, in fact many Christians I know prefer my open atheism to your ephemeral dabbling.) You say you rejected the cartoonish portrayal of the bible as a youth, good for you! Brought up a Catholic I still prefer, and read my King James. I recall the raisings, the multiplyings, the floatings, the casting outs, the partings, and many other tales and still love them. However in what way have they become less 'cartoonish' for you?rvb8
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
#82:
“Even if science could replicate the origin of life in a laboratory following hypothesized natural processes, IDist would simply argue that this was proof of ID.” Because it indubitably would be. I’m glad you understand that.
Wait, even if we replicated the conditions believed to be representative of those in which life originated, and life formed as a result – not only would that not falsify ID, but it would actually be proof of ID? I’ve always been told that ID proposes intelligent intervention, not merely the set-up of initial conditions, and it’s that that allows for the falsifiability of ID. An ID proponent can’t merely use the retort of “get your own dirt”. Thus all one has to do is show a sufficient increase in complexity under plausible natural conditions, and ID is falsified. It’s why Behe could say this:
all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
But now Barry is saying that, far from a flagellum, that even the formation of life wouldn’t suffice. I wonder if Behe would consider Barry as an ID proponent since, as Behe “understands” ID, such things would disprove ID.goodusername
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Harry @ #52,
Although there is metaphysical proof for God’s existence, and there is scientific evidence that renders disbelief irrational (see Robert Spitzer’s New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy ) there is no strictly “scientific” proof of God’s existence, like “if the litmus paper turns blue then …” Those who demand such proof reveal their ignorance of the limitations of science. That God’s existence can be proven metaphysically and that the discoveries of modern science have rendered contemporary atheism more irrational than atheism has ever been before is more than enough to justify theistic belief. It would be enough for atheists, too, if atheism weren’t irrational. There can never be sufficient logical arguments and evidence for the irrational.
I am hesitant to jump on the metaphysical proof for God’s existence band wagon. Nevertheless, there are a few arguments that I find to be logically compelling. For example, Alvin Pantinga’s version of the ontological argument. However, I don’t think even Plantiga views it as “a proof.” Here is a version of Plantiga’s argument offered by William Lane Craig:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. (Why? Because that is just what it means to be possible.) 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (Why? Because that is the way maximal greatness is defined. Maximal greatness means you have maximal excellence in every possible world.) 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. (Why? Remember we said earlier that the actual world is one of the possible worlds, namely, it is the one possible world that is actual. So if he exists in every possible world, then he exists in the actual world.) 5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-23#ixzz4ChWSmnKE Here is a brief Youtube clip where Craig explains the argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0poy7jcbm8 In other words, if it’s even logically possible for a greatest possible being (God) to exist, He must exist… A proof? However notice, even though Craig thinks that the argument is logically sound he admits that he has been hesitant to use it. Why? Well, he says, it’s too abstract for a lot of people. And furthermore, there is the suspicion on the part of some that there is some kind of trick involved. That is why personally I prefer to keep my arguments as modest as possible. It’s not what I find to be compelling or convincing that matters, it comes down to what the skeptic is willing to accept. Unfortunately, when dealing with the typical skeptic (especially on-line,) one has to dumb his arguments down-- actually way down-- to the lowest common denominator.john_a_designer
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Mung
If an entire universe can pop into existence out of nothing I don’t see why the first living cell could not pop into existence out of nothing fully formed. Double standard indeed.
Priceless :-)bill cole
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Seversky
Hoyle’s argument is a strawman, which is a fallacy. It misrepresents how biology hypothesizes life may have begun. Again, there is no claim that relatively complex organisms sprang into existence fully-formed in one step. And neither a 747 nor its components are self-replicating organisms. It’s a bad analogy.
A strawman is taking someone else's argument and changing it and arguing against that change.
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 10^40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out.
Hoyle's argument is that the origin of life by stochastic processes is highly unlikely due to the sequential structure of DNA and Proteins. You have created a straw man to Hoyle's argument by saying that it requires life to arrive spontaneously. Time is not an issue with sequences. This was originally argued by Herbert Yockey in his 1977 paper. Calling this argument a fallacy is scientism. Dozens of papers have been written to try to over come the problem Hoyle mentioned. The reason all evolutionary simulators need a target to finish is based on the mathematics that Hoyle and Yockey introduced.bill cole
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
If an entire universe can pop into existence out of nothing I don't see why the first living cell could not pop into existence out of nothing fully formed. Double standard indeed.Mung
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
MC said:
William @83, very good summary. Given what you have said, is it fair to say that you have developed your world view based on what works best for you and not necessarily on what is true?
Depends on what you mean. There are some things I know are true (with varying degrees of certainty). I don't allow any belief to contradict what I know to be true. I value truthful debate and always strive to tell the truth as I know it. As long as my beliefs do not contradict what I know (such as experiential facts, logical facts, self-evident truths), I choose them based on how well they help me acquire my goals of (1) being a good person and (2) enjoying life. It's not important to me that my beliefs be about true things because the way I hold them is entirely conditional and doesn't require them to be about true things; I only require them to be functional.William J Murray
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Seversky @91 There shouldn't be a claim that complex organisms (like the simplest, reproducing single celled life form known to us) mindlessly and accidentally sprang into existence fully-formed in one step because that is virtually impossible. Nor should there be a claim that self-replicating robotic equipment could come have come about that way because that, too, is virtually impossible. What chance does science perverted by atheism have of eventually explaining how such robotic equipment might mindlessly, accidentally and gradually emerge? No better than you do of ever explaining how that first life form might have done so. As long as science perverted by atheism insists on arbitrarily ruling out the only known reality that is capable of bringing about significant functional complexity -- intelligent agency -- it is doomed to persist in the alchemy of our times: abiogenesis. This will be a black eye and an embarrassment to science for centuries to come. It gives science a very bad name when it is so obviously irrational for the sake of unbelievably far-fetched, blind faith-based atheism. (It can't be proven that God isn't there. That belief must be taken on irrational, blind faith.)harry
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Seversky @91:
Hoyle’s argument is a strawman, which is a fallacy. It misrepresents how biology hypothesizes life may have begun. Again, there is no claim that relatively complex organisms sprang into existence fully-formed in one step. And neither a 747 nor its components are self-replicating organisms. It’s a bad analogy.
Well, it's a good analogy if you're actually able to understand the basic concept. It's clear that you do not. The tornado is analogous to nature forces and environments over any duration of time. The junkyard, IMO, gives far too much credit to the naturalist position because at least a junkyard might have some already manufactured parts that might be useful in building a 747; given a landscape of parts and natural forces over any period of time, the tornado (of natural forces/processes) will never produce a fully functioning 747 or anything categorically similar over any period of time, no matter how many "steps" are available. Tour's video is a good resource for understanding this. Building molecular machines successfully means protecting the development from natural forces and tendencies as much as possible, otherwise you just end up with molecular sludge.William J Murray
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
magna charta @ 78
Seversky at 72, my point was that science could never determine how life originated or how one species evolved into another. Which is a fact. Science may, and probably will, be able to determine the most likely causes and processes for each, but it will never be able to conclusively determine if that is what actually happened. Science can’t do that. And has never claimed that it could. And, unfortunately. Some IDist use that limitation as a doorway for their proposal.
I agree that current science can't do that. But I'd remind you of Clarke's Third Law. Imagine how our science and technology might look to someone from the year 1016. What we now take for granted would be beyond their wildest dreams. Now imagine that the science and technology of 3016 might also be capable of things beyond our wildest dreams. We have no way of knowing. Maybe science will never be able to explain exactly how life on earth came about but we don't know that either.
Even if science could replicate the origin of life in a laboratory following hypothesized natural processes, IDist would simply argue that this was proof of ID.
That goes without saying.Seversky
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
MC said:
But I wasn’t talking about building anything. I was talking about manipulation conditions in a laboratory, none containing materials not naturally available, or under conditions that are, or were, not found naturally.
Generating a living organism is "building" something, MC, whether nature or humans do it. It is the building of what amounts to a self-contained, fully functional self-replicating 3D printer. The problem, as Tour painstakingly describes, is that uninformed nonexperts (including evolutionary biologists) who claim undirected, happenstance nature can produce such nanotechnology are promoting a naturalist myth. He exposes the reality that this myth just lazily glosses over. The video can be boring at times as he describes in detail what it takes to build a very, very simple molecular machine, but it is quite profoundly eye-opening wrt the expectation that nature could have possibly, by itself, generated the nanotechnological and code-bearing marvel that is a living cell. It is literally like expecting that over any amount of time, haphazard collections of interacting chemicals in uncontrolled environments could spontaneously produce a self-replicating 3D robotic printer that can also acquire energy resources and building materials from the environment and functionally process such resources by itself. Can you even for a second step outside of your ideology and look at that idea objectively?William J Murray
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
bill cole @ 76
All arguments have strengths and weaknesses. To understand the weaknesses of your argument you need to understand the strengths of Hoyle’s argument. Its a difficult argument for evolution so I understand the attempt to discount it through the art of spin.
Hoyle's argument is a strawman, which is a fallacy. It misrepresents how biology hypothesizes life may have begun. Again, there is no claim that relatively complex organisms sprang into existence fully-formed in one step. And neither a 747 nor its components are self-replicating organisms. It's a bad analogy.Seversky
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Yeah that's the one, BA. Thanks!William J Murray
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
William @83, very good summary. Given what you have said, is it fair to say that you have developed your world view based on what works best for you and not necessarily on what is true?magna charta
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
William:
Anyone have that video link to the biomolecular engineer who explained what was necessary to build a simple molecular wagon that moved across the surface of gold?
But I wasn't talking about building anything. I was talking about manipulation conditions in a laboratory, none containing materials not naturally available, or under conditions that are, or were, not found naturally.magna charta
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 86 Somehow I am not surprised that you came up with that so quickly. ;o) And it makes the point much more powerfully than did my poor attempt to make it in harry@79. God bless you, BA77!harry
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
WJM, this one?
The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - March 2016 Lecture with James Tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zQXgJ-dXM4 Origin of Life: Professor James Tour – May 1, 2016 Excerpt: “All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated… So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal. You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day.“ James Tour – leading Chemist https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/origin-of-life-professor-james-tour-points-the-way-forward-for-intelligent-design/
bornagain77
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
MC said:
Even if science could replicate the origin of life in a laboratory following hypothesized natural processes, IDist would simply argue that this was proof of ID.
Anyone have that video link to the biomolecular engineer who explained what was necessary to build a simple molecular wagon that moved across the surface of gold?William J Murray
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
William J Murray @ 83
There are deeper, more sophisticated and more reasonable understandings of Christianity than you or I were ever offered growing up.
If you haven't already, read some of Augustine's works. He had a massive intellect you would enjoy. I would recommend that you start with his Confessions, then the The City of God, and then his exegetical works. If you are already a student of Augustine, excuse the ring. ;o)harry
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
rvb8 @80 said:
I am an atheist, and have been probably since Sunday school stories, and the unflinching biblical literalists I had teaching me, became angry and unstuck at the mildest queries: what did all the animals eat? Was Babel taller than the World Trade Center? Who did Adam’s children marry? etc
Yes, I rejected mainstream religion when I was a young man for much the same reasons I would suppose, at one point becoming a rather hardcore atheist for many years.
This post was a defense of the ‘supernatural’. Now you say you are not religious, but I assume you have faith in a ‘higher power’? Is it a He, She, or an It?
The problem is, rvb8, is that you're likely going to take my answer and interpret it according to a sort of stereotypical template and not really understand what I mean. So let me try it this way. In my spiritual worldview: 1: Atheists can be every bit as moral and good as theists; many are more so because many people become atheists out of a sense of outrage against what they see as a capricious and even evil god. IOW, atheists are willing to defy and reject god if they perceive that god as doing something evil. This, IMO, is a commendable and entirely righteous behavior. Any god that, say, orders the slaughter of innocent children deserves to be rejected. Any religious teacher or doctrine that doesn't encourage honest questioning and in-depth examination deserves suspicion at the least. 2. There are far, far more religious/spiritual perspectives, ideas and concepts than you or I were privy to in one particular sect's Sunday School or church services. There are some very good philosophical & logical examinations of theism, morality and spirituality beyond the particular, probably rather cartoonish version you and I were subjected to as children and young men. 3. It is one thing to rightfully reject a ridiculous viewpoint (and please note, I'm not calling Christianity or mainstream religion ridiculous viewpoints; I'm saying that the characterization of such that we were presented with as children was (at least for me) ridiculous and worthy of rejection); it is quite another to use that particular experience and a very limited knowledge of spiritual and religious perspectives in the world to justify a wholesale rejection of all things spiritual and religious. Now, do I have faith in a higher power? Yes, but it is not the cartoonish, blind and unexamined faith of a zealot, nor is that faith in the kind of "god" that the template I'm assuming you operate from portrays it to be. There are sound reasons I believe in the kind of god I believe in, and I have sound reasons for the kind of faith I put in that god. My perspective of what god is very different from the kind of god I was taught about in Sunday school - categorically different. I don't see god as a he or a she, but fundamental source of existence, the root cause that creates all experience, more like a unified, fundamental force than what some might envision as a personifed, human like being sitting on some throne. Sentient, but not conscious like we experience consciousness, a sort of super-subconscious. I liken it to the analogy of being in a dream, but instead of dreaming that you are one person, you are simultaneously dreaming that you are billions of people. The dreamer (god) creates the world, the personalities in the world, and all the "rules" of the world, but the dreamt avatars are not aware of this. Please remember this is just an analogy to provide you with some insight in how I see god, and this analogy has its limitations. In my view, there is no need to "worship" god or throw oneself "prostrate" before god; however, correctly understanding or modeling the situation is useful, much in the same way that understanding that one is in a dream is useful while one is in the dream. Now, I could correlate all of this to various extrapolations of quantum theory and list a few quotes by Wheeler or Planck or others that support this view, but I'm not trying to sell you on it; I'm trying to get you to realized that whomever you think you're talking to, I'm not that guy. Many others here, even though Christians, are not that guy either. There are deeper, more sophisticated and more reasonable understandings of Christianity than you or I were ever offered growing up. Once I dropped my anti-theistic blinders, I have come to greatly appreciate the Christians here and what they have done, on the whole, throughout history, and the insights they offer here. They have proved invaluable to me and my search to find a rational, intellectually satisfying model of the world and my existence. Now, as far as "the supernatural"; my argument here about it is based on logic. However, beyond that, I know the supernatural exists because I experience it, much like the lucid dreamer can experience things in the dream that would defy any attempt at rational explanation, other than "I am in a dream".William J Murray
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Magna, "Even if science could replicate the origin of life in a laboratory following hypothesized natural processes, IDist would simply argue that this was proof of ID." Because it indubitably would be. I'm glad you understand that.Barry Arrington
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
rvb8 you state:
I am an atheist, and have been probably since Sunday school stories, and the unflinching biblical literalists I had teaching me, became angry and unstuck at the mildest queries: what did all the animals eat? Was Babel taller than the World Trade Center? Who did Adam’s children marry? etc
So you became an atheist because some Sunday school teachers could not answer your questions about the Bible? And on the flip side of that, what about the leading atheist philosopher of the world, the late Anthony Flew, becoming a Theist because science itself led him to that conclusion and Atheism could not answer the big questions?
"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Antony Flew - world's leading atheist philosopher for most of his adult life until a few years shortly before his death The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel – video (26:00 minute mark) http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/ee32d/ Antony Flew on God and Atheism - Lee Strobel interview - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUtMEru4pQ
Thus rvb8, since the leading Atheist philosopher in the world became a Theist after some very deep thought on these 'scientific' issues, and Atheism's failure to adequately answer his questions, it appears that Theism is not so easily dismissed as your unanswered questions in Sunday school indicated. The basis of your non-belief in God reminds me on this quote:
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg
bornagain77
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
You say you you're not a, 'religious person', that you are not of any 'organized faith'. Hmmmm! OK, I don't think you are lying, that is something I think is obvious from your writing, you appear, as do most posters here, to have strong convictions, but do not compromise on what they believe to be the truth; I think I am similar. I am an atheist, and have been probably since Sunday school stories, and the unflinching biblical literalists I had teaching me, became angry and unstuck at the mildest queries: what did all the animals eat? Was Babel taller than the World Trade Center? Who did Adam's children marry? etc This post was a defense of the 'supernatural'. Now you say you are not religious, but I assume you have faith in a 'higher power'? Is it a He, She, or an It?rvb8
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Seversky @75
But that’s just another version of the Hoyle Fallacy. -- Seversky
Hoyle's thinking regarding the likelihood of mindless and accidental abiogenesis was not fallacious. He famously compared it to the likelihood of a tornado constructing a Boeing 747 as follows:
A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe. -- Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, 1983
He also saw that the most likely explanation was intelligent agency:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly miniscule?" Of course you would... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. -- Fred Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Engineering and Science, November, 1981
Hoyle was honest about what common sense and mathematics dictated.
No one is suggesting that complex creatures sprang into existence fully-formed. -- Seversky
The simplest reproducing, single-celled life form known to us IS a complex creature. Think about all that was required for the first one to emerge: 1) Roger Penrose famously calculated the odds of the Big Bang mindlessly and accidentally producing a Universe where life was even a possibility to be 1 in 10^10^123. 2) Mechanisms to constructively harness energy were required. 3) A memory device to contain the assembly instructions for the cellular machinery required for metabolism and reproduction along with the assembly instructions for the cellular machinery necessary to utilize the assembly instructions were required. 4) That memory device had to somehow be populated with the correct assembly instructions for all of that. 5) The very first life form had to somehow assemble the cellular machinery necessary to utilize the assembly instructions without using the assembly instructions for the process to get started. 6) All of the above had to be arrived at without the aid of natural selection because natural selection couldn't begin until metabolism and replication got started. 7) An environment that facilitated life being assembled and provided the necessary resources for life to sustain its metabolism and replication had to be arrived at. We can decide that Boeing 747s just might get assembled accidentally, and that Gone With the Wind just might get composed accidentally, and that all that was required for life to come about accidentally just might have accidentally happened. Or we can be rational and conclude that since there are no instances whatsoever of significant functional complexity coming about mindlessly and accidentally that such phenomena only come about via intelligent agency.harry
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
Seversky at 72, my point was that science could never determine how life originated or how one species evolved into another. Which is a fact. Science may, and probably will, be able to determine the most likely causes and processes for each, but it will never be able to conclusively determine if that is what actually happened. Science can't do that. And has never claimed that it could. And, unfortunately. Some IDist use that limitation as a doorway for their proposal. Even if science could replicate the origin of life in a laboratory following hypothesized natural processes, IDist would simply argue that this was proof of ID.magna charta
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
WJM said:
“The certainty that all humanity are created equal and have inherent value.”
rvb8 said:
Perhaps in your Disney imagination.
Well, okay, so you are disagreeing with the premise that everyone is equal? Not sure what this means.
Your accusations against me are ludicrous. I have three older brothers in happy marriages, a younger sister likewise, several nieces and nephewa I dote upon, and a partner whom I think, loves me. All, apparently human emotions, and all without the obnoxious God you seem so hell bent on venerating: No thank you!
Uh, okay. What was all this in reference to? Did I claim you don't have emotions somewhere? What god do you think I'm "hellbent" on venerating?
Is this mockery of Catholacism?
No, it's a comparison that has to do with placing too much trust in any human institution and putting any group of humans up on pedestals.
If it is, be aware I was indeed Catholic up until the age of ‘childhood’, then I grew up. Your metaphor again, is telling. That you immediately look for a religious association in a scientific discussion tells me that the supernatural is never far from your thoughts. When I see a beautiful sunset it makes me glow and appreciate my fragile existance, to treasure it, when you see the same sunset you have a desire to prostrate yourself. I prefer the knowable.
We're not having a scientific discussion, rvb8. We're having a discussion about science, the supernatural, beliefs, and other things. I'm not a religious person, rvb8. I'm not of any organized faith. I think that it is likely that your rather odd, off-kilter and overwrought reactions to what I write stem from some rather crude stereotype you imagine my beliefs to be like.William J Murray
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Seversky
Not that way. But that’s just another version of the Hoyle Fallacy.
By labeling an argument a fallacy up front your argument becomes circular.
No one is suggesting that complex creatures sprang into existence fully-formed. If anything, that’s the creationist belief, that God created living things fully-formed out of…out of what? And how? Or isn’t that important? If it happened naturalistically then it would have started from very simple beginnings and slowly built up incrementally over millions of years.
All arguments have strengths and weaknesses. To understand the weaknesses of your argument you need to understand the strengths of Hoyle's argument. Its a difficult argument for evolution so I understand the attempt to discount it through the art of spin.bill cole
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
harry @ 73
We don’t yet know that one can’t drop tons of Scrabble pieces out of jumbo jet as it flies over an empty parking lot and have them accidentally land such that they neatly spell out Gone With the Wind. Life is Gone With the Wind neatly spelled out on the parking lot. One could be rational and just admit that it is most likely the case that an intelligent agent arranged the Scrabble pieces. Or one could insist that eventually the Scrabble pieces/jumbo jet method (or any mindless and accidental method) will be proven to be how that happened. Does that really make sense?
Not that way. But that's just another version of the Hoyle Fallacy. No one is suggesting that complex creatures sprang into existence fully-formed. If anything, that's the creationist belief, that God created living things fully-formed out of...out of what? And how? Or isn't that important? If it happened naturalistically then it would have started from very simple beginnings and slowly built up incrementally over millions of years.Seversky
June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply