What if its True?

F/N 2: MF's remarks on causality and origins are worth excerpting and remarking on:

I am interested to see how you prove that there must be a first cause and that first cause is God using these laws alone. Looking at the comments above I see these additional assumptions: * Every event has at least one cause * Everything that is material must begin to exist at some stage * An immaterial thing that does not “begin to exist” is God (2)Actually the whole argument rests on the idea that causality is a well defined relationship between two events. A moments thought reveals that “A caused B” can mean all sorts of different things . . .

1 --> Of course the material issue is not the cosmological argument to God as such, but the issue that contingency necessitates necessity. 2 --> MF then twists the causality principle into EVERYTHING has at least one cause. Inexcusable in a trained philosopher as he knows or should know that the principle, properly but simply stated, is that that which begins to exist or can cease from existing -- i.e. is contingent -- has a cause. 3 --> Where, it is important to identify as well that cause comes in two primary flavours: necessary and sufficient, though contributory causes are also a relevant issue. 4 --> To see the significance of this distinction, consider a burning match: each of heat, oxidiser and fuel are necessary and they are jointly sufficient. Remove any necessary factor and the flame ceases to exist, Absent the sufficient factors, the flame will not begin to exist. [Observe, that this is using a concrete example to help us understand that which is self-evident.] 5 --> In short MF here has already begged the question, setting up a strawman caricature. (There is a similar strawman caricature lurking in the notion that one is trying to prove on principles of logic alone!) 6 --> Similarly, MF twists the issue of the credible contingency of the observed material cosmos, into an implicit suggestion that matter in some form may be eternal. 7 --> To sustain this, he neatly ignores the key point already raised, that by 2nd law of thermodynamics [anchored on implications of credibly undirected contingencies of distributions of mass and energy at microscale, i.e laws of probability across macrostates with differing statistical weights of microstates] energy is becoming steadily less available for interactions and change, i.e high-quality energy sources tend to steadily deteriorate. (As I show here,on Clausius, an energy-importing system normally accelerates its rate of deterioration, save if there is a structure that can couple the energy and put it to useful work. When those structures are FSCI-rich, they of course routinely come from design.] 8 --> So, if the cosmos as a whole is material and closed, and eternal, it should already have reached so-called heat death. manifestly, it has not, or we would not be here discussing. So, the cosmos as a whole has a finite duration since its beginning; is contingent, and has a cause. (And this is before we get to the observations on our sub-cosmos that point to its definite beginning at a certain point perhaps some 13.7 BYA.) 9 --> So, now we have the alternative view that things can begin to exist from nothing, nowhere, for no reason, i.e without cause. But in fact, we already see that his would result in a chaos not a cosmos, i.e the very intelligibility of our world that grounds science is an immediate and insuperable difficulty. 10 --> Sometimes, as in recent weeks here, quantum phenomena are held to be counter-examples. But (per he existence of Quantum theory as a field of science) these phenomena and objects follow definite intelligible laws, are constrained by definite necessary causal factors that find expression in those laws [think energy conservation and the energy-time version of uncertainty], and happen in a where at a when. They are just the opposite of acausal. 11 --> As tot he notion that an immaterial necessary being is by that fact "God," that has not been the proper focus of the argument, i.e we see here a bot of loading to appeal to anti-supernaturalistic prejudice. We are simply establishing the reason why a contingent material cosmos logically requires a necessary being -- as yet unspecified as to particular nature -- as its explanation and cause. (God is a candidate to be that being [to be given a job interview later on: e.g. what is responsible for the evident fine-tuning of our observed contingent cosmos for C-Chemistry, cell based life?], certainly, but that is a very different point, and that is surely not an unwarranted assumption.) 12 --> to the suggestion that cause is an ill-defined idea,we have of course given an experience-based clarification of the concept of cause per a case of a match, so that we see the significance of the distinction between necessary and sufficient causal factors. 13 --> We may also use this and other examples to mark the difference between chance, mechanical necessity and directed contingency as distinct, distinguishable causal factors. All of this has repeatedly been done, and is being conveniently brushed aside. (Was a certain fire the result of predictable and inexorable deterioration of insulation leading to short circuit, to a freak accident that shorted out a light switch or arson?) 14 --> So, while cause can indeed mean all sorts of things, that does not mean that cause is unintelligible or fundamentally confused and meaningless. Let's take MF's case, which relies on contributory factors:

Consider a road accident – in different contexts we might say the cause was: The weather The poorly constructed road The driver’s lack of training The radio programme that distracted the driver at the crucial moment The lack of ABS on this car None of these are necessary or sufficient and each has a slightly different relationship to the event.

16 --> But, once an accident has occurred, it had a beginning, and it had logically and causally prior factors that contributed to its existence. Without sufficient causal factors, there would have been no accident in this particular case -- and observe how vague the list is. Absent necessary factors, there COULD have been no particular -- not generic, cause is about specifics -- accident. That has not been undermined, but exemplified. 17 --> For instance, a wet poorly lit and badly cambered road with a sharp bend overlooking a precipice at night, multiplied by an unfamiliar, tired and inexperienced driver of an old crate without proper anti-skid brakes, listening to the DJ on the radio when he should have been attending to the dangerous road adds up to a convincingly sufficient and intelligible causal account of the accident that sent a carload of teenagers over a cliff. (And this is uncomfortably close to the notorious Spur Tree Hill road in Jamaica, especially in he bad old days. I lost a classmate in Physics over that road's precipice.) 18 --> In short, the case supports the concept of the cumulative effect of necessary and sufficient causal factors. No car, no accident. No road, no accident. No driver, no accident. No cluster of sufficient conditions [as described], no accident. 19 --> MF then tries to dismiss:

None of these are necessary or sufficient --> Whoever said that just one factor must be sufficient? Or, necessary? [And what about the obvious necessary factors you did not list?] and each has a slightly different relationship to the event. Some are events, some are conditions, some are close in time, some less so. --> irrelevant I suspect you are going to think this is a red herring – but it isn’t. --> it is manifestly a strawman, which is a species of red herring Until you really get to grips with causality arguments about “first causes” are so much hot air. --> this conveniently ignores the fact that for quite a long time causality has been explored in detail at UD, and that the issue of necessary and sufficient causal factors was specifically put in place above in this thread --> So this is a dismissive begging of the question

________ This aptly illustrates how it is easy to object to the inference from contingency and cause to a necessary being, but it is a lot harder to stand up to the bar of comparative difficulties. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

August 11, 2010

August

08

Aug

11

11

2010

02:46 AM

2

02

46

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: It is useful to hear what Shapiro and Orgel -- actual leading experts and champions of respectively the metabolism first and gens first schools of thought who spent decades in the field -- actually have to say in their recent articles on OOL (and it is well worth the time to read the complete articles, which fill in many details that amplify the core points excerpted below): ________________ >> [[Shapiro:] RNA's building blocks, nucleotides contain a sugar, a phosphate and one of four nitrogen-containing bases as sub-subunits. Thus, each RNA nucleotide contains 9 or 10 carbon atoms, numerous nitrogen and oxygen atoms and the phosphate group, all connected in a precise three-dimensional pattern . . . . [[S]ome writers have presumed that all of life's building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case. A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life . . . . To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth . . . . Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA . . . [[Orgel:] If complex cycles analogous to metabolic cycles could have operated on the primitive Earth, before the appearance of enzymes or other informational polymers, many of the obstacles to the construction of a plausible scenario for the origin of life would disappear . . . . It must be recognized that assessment of the feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility [Cf Abel on plausibility!] . . . few would believe that any assembly of minerals on the primitive Earth is likely to have promoted these syntheses in significant yield . . . . Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of [[for instance] the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [[8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [[6]? . . . Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . . The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help. [[Emphases added.] >> _________________ In short, the chemistry is speaking loud and clear: NEITHER RNA-FIRST NOR METABOLISM-FIRST SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ARE CHEMICALLY PLAUSIBLE ON HE ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WE CAN OBSERVE. No wonder, science writer was moved to conclude (much like Berlinski as already cited):

. . . Scientists have come a long way from the early days of supposing that all this would inevitably arise in the “prebiotic soup” of the ancient oceans; indeed, evidence eventually argued against such a soup, and the concept was largely discarded as the field progressed. But significant problems persist with each of the two competing models that have arisen—usually called “genes first” and “metabolism first”—and neither has emerged as a robust and obvious favorite. [["Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks." Emphases added.]

When we look at the actual digitally coded, functionally specific, complex information and organsied implementing machinery in eh cell, without materialistic blinkers, the answer jumps out: the cell is a technology. And, what harm would come from such a conclusion? Would science stop and the labs for research get closed? No, we would have the real job ahead: reverse engineering life -- the job has just begun -- and putting its technologies to use. Would our civilisation get overturned and lose its values? No, we would return to the historically dominant pattern of thought in our civilisation, a design oriented view of our world. We know from history that modern science was born within that worldivew. And we know form the history of ideas that if anything, values would find a firmer foundation in a world friendly to design thought. (Evolutionary materialism, ever since 360 BC, has been known to be inherently amoral and tending to nihilism.) So, the real problem is that today's reigning orthodoxy of a priori, ideological materialism is being challenged and has no real answers on the merits, so it is calling for ever more doses of blind faith and zeal, while suppressing dissent in the most uncivil fashion. All of which are signs of collapse looming ahead. Probably within 20 years, it will all be over. So, it is time to continue to build information age science and to put up the mirror of unwelcome truth to the magisterium in Lab coats. Soon enough, the desperate pumping actions will fail and the holes in the waterline will sink the unsound ship of ideologised a priori materialism lurking in a lab coat and speaking in the name of science. ((Sometimes, only mixed metaphors will get a point across.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus

August 11, 2010

August

08

Aug

11

11

2010

01:38 AM

1

01

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: First, let us ignore for the moment the rude, uncalled for and offensive personal abuse and slander Petrushka resorts to in 143 above. (A sure sign of the third phase of the standard tactic of the ideologised, closed mind: distractive red herrings dragged out to caricatured strawmen laced with ad hominems and now ignited to cloud, confuse, choke, polarise and poison the atmosphere in order to frustrate discussion on the merits.) Let us therefore note on the merits that P has chosen to resort to abuse to disguise the fact that he cannot counter the raw fact that Shapiro and Orgel in their exchange of articles a few years ago, committed mutual fratricide of the genes first and metabolism first schools of thought on OOL research. Shapiro being a champion of the latter, and Orgel a late champion of the former putting out a posthumous rejoinder. Let us not forget that context on the merits: there is no credible chemical basis for an RNA world to spontaneously form, and there is no credible basis for metabolic reaction sets to form under plausible pre-life conditions. But, at all costs [including resort to utterly rude incivility], the ideologised, closed mind CANNOT acknowledge that unwelcome fact. So, P owes us all an apology, but sadly, probably will not find the humility to give one. Having noted that, it is ever so interesting to see how as a standard tactic, darwinist objectors will do all in their power to use tangential issue after tangential issue to divert threads of discussion from a focus they cannot cogently address on the merits. The proper answer to that trollish tactic of thread-jacking [and yes, that is what it is], is to insist that discussions be relevant and repeatedly refocus on the topical issue. In this case, that is the point that:

a: if we look at the logical possibility that --on empirical evidence of credibly reliable signs of design -- it is true that living things [especially the cell] appears designed for the excellent reason that it is, and b: multiply by the tactic that would inject a priori materialism as a constraint that "definitionally" locks this possibility out from being regarded as "science," then c: what this reveals is not a fault with a as a process of empirically based investigation, but a fault with b that amounts to violation of the keystone value of science that it should seek the truth about our world.

So, the issue is not whether we LABEL something as "science" -- which after all is an anfglicised form of the Latin for "knowledge," which in practical terms is well-warranted and credibly [even if provisionally so] true belief" -- but whether our empirically anchored kno3ledge claims are well warranted and credibly true. Inter alia that means that we cannot tolerate teh sort of censoring, ideologically question-begging a prioris that b just above illustrates. That gives us a useful background for understanding P's latest tactic, in , on how he tries to deflect six decades of consistent failure to trigger the spontaneous emergence of information and organisation of cell-based life from molecular scale random thermal agitation/motion and related effects and physico-chemical forces in various equivalents to Darwin's warm little pond:

Your conclusion is that because research is hard, long and tedious, that it isn’t worth doing? That’s the Barbie Doll approach to science . . . [offensive slanders omitted]

1 --> This is an outright lie, false words put into my mouth that do not belong there; in order to try to make it out that I am "anti-scientific." 2 --> The best counter is to again put on the table the point I have been raising since no 38 above, on how the project of origins science is inescapably constrained by the undeniable fact that we were not there in the remote past of origins, and so have to try to plausibly and provisionally reconstruct it based on what we see as causal patterns in the present,reasonable initial circumstances, and resulting unfolding dynamics. 3 --> Such a reconstruction is inherently provisional, far moreso than an experimental science, where we can set up situations in the lab and direclty observe what happens. 4 --> As a result, we have no right to ever claim that origins science reconstructions are anything like an actual history. Which is the precise error P made which I pointed out above, in 140; and which correction immediately led to his rude outburst. 5 --> So, let us remind ourselves yet again of the key points from comment 38 above, which cite what is probably the first recorded discussion of the central epistemological challenge faced by origins science initiatives:

12 –> Now, one of the challenges on origin of life is that whenever and wherever it happened, it happened in a deep past we cannot observe, nor do we have generally accepted records. That is the source of the sting in Job when YHWH speaks out of the storm in ch 38:

1 . . . the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand . . .

13 –> Plainly, this is a very good and deep challenge to the project of origins science. 14 –> The best answer we can give is that once (i) we can establish an empirically reliable pattern in the present, (ii) we can observe traces of the past in the present, and (iii) we can see a credible set of initial circumstances that through those patterns would give rise to sufficiently similar traces, (iv) we may scientifically infer on best explanation, that the suggested circumstances and dynamics are a credible — albeit inevitably provisional — origins narrative. 15 –> Of course, one thing that we have no right to do, is to claim that such an inferential reconstruction is a fact beyond reasonable dispute or doubt. (Sadly, it is necessary to note this, as there is a tendency to over-claim the factual basis for evolutionary theories of origins.) 16 –> Coming back from epistemological underpinnings (and yes, science inescapably rests on philosophical foundations), we can note that there is a clear, empirically reliable pattern concerning dFSCI: it is a sign that — per a massive base of observations and without a credible counterexample that can stand basic scrutiny — reliably points to directed contingency as its origin.

6 --> How does P try to counter this? By insinuating that I am suggesting that if we cannot solve a problem in 10 minutes [i.e. the required to put up a shortish blog comment] then I want "science" abandoned. 7 --> Subtext: by "science," P actually means the ideologised Lewontinian paradigm, by which only that which is a priori materialistic can count as "scientific." Which of course as I point out here, sacrifices the core commitment of science to seeking the truth about our world in light of empirical evidence. The very commitment that won for science its respect in the community. 7 --> The issue, plainly is not that research that is hard, long and tedious is not worth doing [the slander-soaked strawman he would put in my mouth . . . ], but that science should not be fettered by a priori ideological materialistic censorship that blocks inference from observed causal patterns that explains a phenomenon that is otherwise intractable, for many decades now. 8 --> And in that cause, he [and others] would love to ditch the key basic principle of reasoning that that which begins to exist or can cease from existing has a cause. 9 --> Because, in the end, they would love to have us suitably un-curious as to how digitally coded, functionally specific complex information and the associated organised molecular nanotechnology came to be in the heart of cell based life on earth; given the only observed and empirically credible source for such technologies: directed contingency, aka art, aka intelligence capable of using language and related techniques. 10 --> And that too is a subtext for much of what happens above on the inference from a contingent cosmos to a cause that is a necessary being. (And, of course there are assumptions in all arguments, the issue is to put them on the table of comparative difficulties; where at once the notion that things happen out of nothing, nowhere, for no reason begins to look just a little absurd. In short, one may indeed choose to reject causality, but only to find oneself on a sticky wicket indeed. BTW, once one sits down to comparative difficulties across competing live option worldviews, the credibility of rebuttals on claims of circularity and of question-begging hidden assumptions, evaporates. No prizes for guessing why objectors to the inference form causality to a necessary being usually wish to shoot barrages of objections but as a rule will not put up their alternative for open comparative difficulties assessment.) _________________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus

August 11, 2010

August

08

Aug

11

11

2010

01:11 AM

1

01

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#157 The laws of reason are being, identity, (sometimes just called identity) non-contradiction, (in ontology, something cannot exist and not exist, in epistemology, a truth claim is either true or false) and excluded middle (in ontology something either exists or does not exist and in epistemology something is either true or false). (1) I am interested to see how you prove that there must be a first cause and that first cause is God using these laws alone. Looking at the comments above I see these additional assumptions: * Every event has at least one cause * Everything that is material must begin to exist at some stage * An immaterial thing that does not "begin to exist" is God (2) Actually the whole argument rests on the idea that causality is a well defined relationship between two events. A moments thought reveals that "A caused B" can mean all sorts of different things. Consider a road accident - in different contexts we might say the cause was: The weather The poorly constructed road The driver's lack of training The radio programme that distracted the driver at the crucial moment The lack of ABS on this car None of these are necessary or sufficient and each has a slightly different relationship to the event. Some are events, some are conditions, some are close in time, some less so. I suspect you are going to think this is a red herring - but it isn't. Until you really get to grips with causality arguments about "first causes" are so much hot air.markf

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

11:06 PM

11

11

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"You have a hidden assumption that some kinds of first causes are better than others, and that magic things that do not begin are superior to material things that do not begin." "Things that do not begin" sounds more magical than things that exist because they begin by a necessary first cause. "Some kinds of first causes?" What do you mean by that? Yes, some kinds of explanations for causality are better than others - ones that follow logic as opposed to ones that do not. There's no reason for a "hidden assumption" in that.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

08:33 PM

8

08

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

first uncaused cause Thats amazing. You define a thing to be beyond criticism, and, lo, it is.Graham

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

08:09 PM

8

08

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

petrushka @ 150 "That’s known as circular reasoning." Hardly. It's called willful ignorance or rejection of reason. Reason is the ultimate authority in matters of truth. If you would disagree with me on this then you would be obligated to give me reason why you believed that reason was inadequate in matters of truth. Do you "get" that? This is not circular reasoning it is a direct experience of reason. We directly experience the truths of reason (first principles) with our minds just like we experience the physical world with our five senses. "I could simplify things by asserting that the meta-universe that gives rise to universes like ours did not begin to exist, and therefore needs no cause. This is much more parsimonious and has just as much supporting evidence." This is actually false on a couple of levels. First is the rational level. You have not identified whether or not the "meta-universe" is physical or immaterial. If immaterial, then you have essentially acknowledged God. If material, then you have merely pushed back your explanatory problems by one step. On an empirical level, I would like to suggest to you a "proof" that the universe is finite, and therefore caused (that's part of what finite means). In order to do this I will refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm sure you are familiar with this law. In essence, it says that entropy in a closed system always increases until it reaches a maximum state. The universe is a closed system. I will save you the effort of denying this by citing the 1st law of thermodynamics which says basically says that energy (and by equivalence, matter E=mc^2) can neither be created or destroyed. That means at least that the universe is finite. What the universe is, is all it will ever be. Nobody is adding to the universe. I realize that the laws of thermodynamics (nor any other empirical/inductive conclusion of science) do not force a deductive (certain, necessarily true) conclusion. However, I also realize that when science uses the word "law" it means that there has never been an observation that contradicts said law. So although the argument I am about to make does not have a logically necessary conclusion it does have a law of physics necessity about it. Here is the argument. If the universe was eternal, a maximum state of entropy would have been reached by now. (I hope I don't have to explain this but I will, if necessary.) But a maximum state of entropy has not been reached. (Our sun is still burning, for one.) Therefore, the universe is not eternal. This is called a modus tollens argument and it is valid. That means that given a necessary connection between the antecedent and the consequent, and true premises, the conclusion necessarily follows. Thus, in order to defeat this argument, which is based on SCIENCE, by the way, and which CONFIRMS the logical argument, you have to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Let me suggest that in this case, I hold the upper hand by relying on these laws. "If you can simply pull assumptions out of thin air, you can prove anything." You are making a fatal logical mistake here and if you can understand what I am about to say it will improve your reasoning skills considerably. Here is the mistake. You say that we "simply pull assumptions out of thin air." This is not true. Our "assumptions" are based on what cannot be denied, and nothing else. This is something that "you people" cannot seem to grasp or perhaps you are unwilling to grasp because you know it destroys a naturalistic world view. The laws of reason are being, identity, (sometimes just called identity) non-contradiction, (in ontology, something cannot exist and not exist, in epistemology, a truth claim is either true or false) and excluded middle (in ontology something either exists or does not exist and in epistemology something is either true or false). These things cannot be denied. You cannot possibly claim that something simultaneously exists and doesn't exist or is true and false at the same time in the same way. So we are not just making up assumptions or relying upon "faith" or "wishful thinking." Our arguments begin with WHAT CANNOT RATIONALLY BE DENIED. I really hope this helps.tgpeeler

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

08:08 PM

8

08

08

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I clarified this by stating that everything that “begins” to exist has a cause.

Repeating yourself doesn't solve your problem. You have a hidden assumption that some kinds of first causes are better than others, and that magic things that do not begin are superior to material things that do not begin. It's all rubbish. You want to believe what you want to believe,and you simply define your terms so you can win. If you can get paid for doing that, more power to you. But it's a childish game, and boring.Petrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

08:05 PM

8

08

05

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Vivid, And the astonishing thing is that they believe (or claim) their very elaborate euphemisms are more parsimonious than design.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

07:50 PM

7

07

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Vivid, No, I think he provisionally accepts it, or he wouldn't have postulated his meta-universe argument. He's trying to find a tweak, which will allow him to keep his apriori metaphysical assumptions. I think he accepts that there must be a first uncaused cause, but he truly thinks there's a materialist tweak, which can avoid the obvious. Hence, postulating a designer in the form of a meta-universe, while not actually calling it a designer. With materialists, certain very elaborate euphemisms substitute for "design" and "designers." The entire multiverse scheme is one such euphemism. See posts 150 and 151.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

07:47 PM

7

07

47

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"How many other ways must this be stressed before you concede? You’ve tried several angles, and you’ve failed." CY once someone has abandoned reason you cannot expect them to understand an argument that employs reason. Hint Petrushka does not accept your first premise everything that begins to exist has a cause. Vividvividbleau

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

06:53 PM

6

06

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Me: "Since the first cause is uncaused, it did not begin to exist." P: "That’s known as circular reasoning." No, actually without the word "since," it would be a tautology, but it's an argument that what is uncaused does not begin to exist. It is a logical argument due to the contention that things that begin to exist can exist without a cause. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and it defies the logic of causality. It further defies the Law of non-contradiction. If something began, something began it. This is a prime directive for doing science, philosophy, history and so on. I think you evaded my argument by accusing me of circular reasoning. But it is you who implied that the first cause must have been caused if everything that exists has a cause. I clarified this by stating that everything that "begins" to exist has a cause. By definition, an uncaused cause did not begin to exist, so it is not simply an exception to a rule, but a completely different categorical phenomenon, which I pointed out is "necessity," vs. contingency. What you are arguing is that everything that exists is contingent, without a necessary first cause. Well since all contingent things (those that begin to exist) require a cause, the only logical inference possible is that there is a necessary first cause that was not itself caused; or just so we're clear - did not begin to exist. How many other ways must this be stressed before you concede? You've tried several angles, and you've failed.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

06:35 PM

6

06

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"I could simplify things by asserting that the meta-universe that gives rise to universes like ours did not begin to exist, and therefore needs no cause. This is much more parsimonious and has just as much supporting evidence." Petrushka, it could only be parsimonious if you engage in an apriori assumption of materialism. But then again, it defies logic, because a universe that is finite, which gives rise to other universes, must have begun to exist, particularly if such a universe involves the properties of time and space. but then again, if it does not, it sounds suspiciously like the necessary uncaused cause we are forced to infer by logic. An uncaused cause, that is not finite, does not need to begin to exist. So your meta-universe could be the uncaused cause, but it's properties cannot be anything like the properties of the real universe in which we live, and we can just as well infer the same attributes to such a meta-universe as we currently infer by logic on a designer. If we do that, your universe begins to look more and more like the uncaused designer; attributes and all. So by your argument, you've solved nothing. You're inferring a designer without calling it a designer.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

06:07 PM

6

06

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Since the first cause is uncaused, it did not begin to exist.

That's known as circular reasoning. I could simplify things by asserting that the meta-universe that gives rise to universes like ours did not begin to exist, and therefore needs no cause. This is much more parsimonious and has just as much supporting evidence. If you can simply pull assumptions out of thin air, you can prove anything.Petrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

05:35 PM

5

05

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#148--"I will go ahead and translate a few of your statements.....StephenB

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

04:11 PM

4

04

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Petrushka, I will go ahead and translation a few of your statments in the language of rationality: ---"Causation is something we observe in our everyday lives, but it cannot be asserted as something that is self-evidently true." [I can observe cause/effect relationships] ---"There is no logical reason why the sequences of events we observe could not be coincidence, and therse is no definitive test to disprove this hypothesis." [The cause/ effect relationships that I confidently alluded to in the previous paragraph are not necessarily cause/effect relationships after all] [I just used the word, "logical," but I have no idea what I mean by that term since I hold that logic has no rules]StephenB

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

04:09 PM

4

04

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Beyond that you have no evidence or attributes to assign to the first cause." Well actually this is false as well. From the logic of the necessary first uncaused cause, one can logically infer a number of attributes, given that things began to exist as a result of a necessary first cause causing them to exist. The attributes of a designer are not only found in the Bible; they are also inferred by logic. But that's another discussion.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

03:01 PM

3

03

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

P "You have no basis for asserting there is only one uncaused cause. You just say it’s true and expect everyone to agree." Not at all. It follows from logic. If there is more than one first or uncaused cause, then one cancels the other, or one is contingent on the other and is not necessary. Therefore, one is not an uncaused cause at all. From logic there is only room for one necessary cause. So then two uncaused (necessary) causes becomes another logical absurdity. I think you're confused with regard to necessity and contingency. The logic only requires (or allows) one necessity and whatever follows is contingent. P: "If there is a first cause, then there is at least one instance of something that is not caused. That is not difficult." Here you're confusing what the cosmological argument actually states. 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore the universe had a cause. Since the first cause is uncaused, it did not begin to exist. Therefore, it does not require a cause. Therefore, it still follows that there is a necessary first uncaused cause. Everything else is contingent; IOW, everything else began to exist. Now besides what you may have read from Victor Stenger and others, the cosmological argument is logically sound. Stenger therefore, approaches such arguments from observation, and claims that quantum events prove the first premise is false. And indeed, several Darwinist supporters attempted and continue to attempt to use this argument on other threads. But what Stenger fails to exercise is first principles. He relies upon logic to infer that quantum events prove that some things can have no cause, while at the same time, ignoring the logic behind causality. But he further fails to acknowledge the provisional nature of such observations of quantum events. So in a sense, Stenger holds provisional observation above logic, except when logic serves his interests; which appears to be what you hold as well in this thread and others.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

02:52 PM

2

02

52

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

How does this last statement follow from the first? You’re assuming that this omniscient being is not aware of time?

If there is a first cause, then there is at least one instance of something that is not caused. That is not difficult. Beyond that you have no evidence or attributes to assign to the first cause. You have no basis for asserting there is only one uncaused cause. You just say it's true and expect everyone to agree.Petrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

01:58 PM

1

01

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SB:"That same logical system that depends on the law of non-contradiction is the same logical system that requires an uncaused cause." P: "If you say all crows are black, and I show you a white crow, what does that say about your assertion?" The only way this argument could be true is for you to produce an object or thing that has not been caused. That is what defies the infinite regress absurdity, not a necessary first cause. P: "Causation is something we observe in our everyday lives, but it cannot be asserted as something that is self-evidently true." Can you say that without appealing to self-evidentiary statements (which are no less false)? P: "There is no logical reason why the sequences of events we observe could not be coincidence, and therse is no definitive test to disprove this hypothesis." Depends on how you define "coincidence." I think you would be better served in this statement if you used the term "chance." But chance, contingency and effect are premature. You have to deal with cause and infinite regress issue first. You don't seem to want to deal with these. Not surprising though. This is common among materialists. P: "Some people, and I think some who frequent this forum, believe in an omniscient being. From the point of view of an omniscient being there is no time and all things are concurrent." Then: "The appearance of cause and effect have no meaning outside time." How does this last statement follow from the first? You're assuming that this omniscient being is not aware of time? You're trying to limit omniscience for the sake of your argument, but it doesn't work. If an omniscient being is truly omniscient, such a being is aware of time and what is necessary for cause and effect, while not him/herself being limited by cause/effect/time. You're making assumptions where such are not warranted. P: "So whatever your heart’s desire, the issues of causation and first cause are not settled." You're arguing as if causation is an issue for science to settle. There are things science cannot settle, and are left to philosophy. The causation issue is one of them. "Youn can rant and whine and stomp your feet, but I am simply not impressed with argument from 'because I said so.' You solution is ad hoc. The concept of first cause is simply tacked on to a hopeless infinite regress. It serves no purpose but to rescue an axiom that cannot be rescued." Interesting conclusion from a person who has been given careful and reasoned responses from both SB and KF on the issue of causation, that you should assert: "I am simply not impressed with argument from "because I said so." Then using the same "I said so" argumentation that you claim not to be impressed with, and furthermore implying that SB and KF and others on this forum are using, you assert that the "concept of first cause is simply tacked on to a hopeless infinite regress." No, Petrushka, it is the very infinite regress absurdity, which makes a first cause necessary. I think you need to get your terminology correct here. It is not a "hopeless" infinite regress, as if by somehow providing it some hope, it might be revived; it is, rather an "absurd" infinite regress, which defies the very fundamentals of logic, and the only way to escape it is by positing an uncaused first cause. Science will not settle this, because it is already settled by logic, without which science could not operate.CannuckianYankee

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

01:22 PM

1

01

22

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Also, read the remarks by Shapiro and Orgel, to see how the genes first and metabolism first schools have mutually destroyed one another.

Your conclusion is that because research is hard, long and tedious, that it isn't worth doing? That's the Barbie Doll approach to science. You have a bottomless ignorance of the history of science and absolutely no perspective. Anything that takes longer tha ten seconds is beyond your attention span. How many years passed between Copernicus and Newton? Newton and Einstein?Petrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:59 PM

12

12

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/n: Excerpting the two wiki articles: _________________ >>Eigen's paradox is one of the most intractable puzzles in the study of the origins of life. It is thought that the error threshold concept described above limits the size of self replicating molecules to perhaps a few hundred digits, yet almost all life on earth requires much longer molecules to encode their genetic information. This problem is handled in living cells by enzymes that repair mutations, allowing the encoding molecules to reach sizes on the order of millions of base pairs. These large molecules must, of course, encode the very enzymes that repair them, and herein lies Eigen's paradox, first put forth by Manfred Eigen in his 1971 paper (Eigen 1971). Simply stated, Eigen's paradox amounts to the following: * 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 >>Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple Bacteriophage Q? (Q?) into a solution which contained the RNA replication enzyme RNA replicase from the Q? virus Q-Beta Replicase, some free nucleotides and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to replicate. After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated[1]. Shorter RNA chains were able to replicate faster, so the RNA became shorter and shorter as selection favored speed. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases. Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very quickly in these unnatural circumstances. >> ___________________ The first shows that we have a barrier to surmount to get enough stored information to create a viable self-replicating cell. The second, shows how active information, already existing products of living cells and design were introduced by art to get some RNA replication. In the realistic case, the first challenge would be to get RNA monomers, then to get the right chirality then to get the chaining and circumstances to promote replication. Then we need to go on to provide codes, algorithms, and organisation to get the hot zone of metabolic life forms that self-replicate, by chance and mechanical necessity alone, in the teeth of the implied configuration space challenge. But, all things seem possible to him who looks with the eye of speculative materialistic faith. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:50 PM

12

12

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Quote-mining. Read what is actually said, and compare the artfully excerpted dismissive snippet. Also, read the remarks by Shapiro and Orgel, to see how the genes first and metabolism first schools have mutually destroyed one another. Inferring on known causal patterns from the present to the past in explanation of phenomena showing signs of design is not giving up, save of course if one a priori decides that only a materialistic explanation will count as science. Which begs some bigtime questions and undermines the integrity of science.kairosfocus

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:37 PM

12

12

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: Sadly, we didn't make this up as a strawman, it is real: P,134:

[Cites KF:] Life as we know it involves both metabolism and self-replication intertwined inescapably P Responds: So what? That says nothing about the earliest history of life. Pontificating is not research. Announcing the results of research before it’s done is not science. It’s not even pseudoscience.

But by definition, origins science is about the deep past where there is no history. So, on causal patterns and circumstances observed in the present, we propose a model of the past on scientific principles. That is not history -- we were not there and there are no generally accepted records -- nor can it safely be separated from the anchor of known patterns of cause and effect, including of course that dFSCI is routinely and only known to be produced by directed contingency. Further he is being disrespectful: there is in fact a considerable body of empirical evidence and significant research 0on the validation of the point that what we have been calling dFSCI is in observed cases routinely the product of design. Moreover it is well known that there are no credible counter-instances, or that would be the very first resort in rebuttal. As they say, there is no free lunch on information: to consistently outperform random search you need intelligently injected active information. (And of course -- no thanks to the Darwinists -- there just happens to be some relevant peer-reviewed published research on that subject involving a certain founder of this blog.) We plainly need to remind P of what went on above at 38, which he has plainly ignored, even as he rushes to project unto design thinkers as unacceptable, the exact pattern of empirically unconstrained speculation on unobserveds he and others are indulging on origins and evidently wish to have us swallow as a credible HISTORY of life: ____________ >> 12 –> Now, one of the challenges on origin of life is that whenever and wherever it happened, it happened in a deep past we cannot observe, nor do we have generally accepted records. That is the source of the sting in Job when YHWH speaks out of the storm in ch 38:

1 . . . the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand . . .

13 –> Plainly, this is a very good and deep challenge to the project of origins science. 14 –> The best answer we can give is that once (i) we can establish an empirically reliable pattern in the present, (ii) we can observe traces of the past in the present, and (iii) we can see a credible set of initial circumstances that through those patterns would give rise to sufficiently similar traces, (iv) we may scientifically infer on best explanation, that the suggested circumstances and dynamics are a credible — albeit inevitably provisional — origins narrative. 15 –> Of course, one thing that we have no right to do, is to claim that such an inferential reconstruction is a fact beyond reasonable dispute or doubt. (Sadly, it is necessary to note this, as there is a tendency to over-claim the factual basis for evolutionary theories of origins.) 16 –> Coming back from epistemological underpinnings (and yes, science inescapably rests on philosophical foundations), we can note that there is a clear, empirically reliable pattern concerning dFSCI: it is a sign that — per a massive base of observations and without a credible counterexample that can stand basic scrutiny — reliably points to directed contingency as its origin. >> _____________ turnabout rhetoric and a priori imposition of materialistic rules do not suffice to overturn the fact of design as a causal pattern we routinely observe, and the existence of empirically reliable signs thereof, such as what we may describe as digitally coded, functionally specific, complex information. So, when we see dFSCI in the cell, and note that it is deeply involved in both the metabolism that makes the components and puts them to work, and in the replication that allows it to reproduce itself using these components, we have every reason to infer that such shows that design is a key component of any empirically grounded explanation of the origin of life. Especially as we watch what has been happening to non-design proposals for decades. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:30 PM

12

12

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

It goes without saying that this is a tentative judgment, perhaps only a hunch. But let us suppose that questions about the origins of the mind and the origins of life do lie beyond the grasp of "the model for what science should be." In that case, we must either content ourselves with its limitations or revise the model. If a revision also lies beyond our powers, then we may well have to say that the mind and life have appeared in the universe for no very good reason that we can discern.

Sounds like a really bad Hollywood movie: there are things the lie beyond the power of science to grasp. Etc, etc. What a crock. If science gave up because problems are hard, we'd all live in caves.Petrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:28 PM

12

12

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Where?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_(evolution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_MonsterPetrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:11 PM

12

12

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: And, that is before P even addresses the issue of the nucleotides and the actual empirical observations vs the speculative scenarios on self-replication. Do I need to insist that we have in hand a principle that dFSCI is per induction on observed patterns a known signature of directed contingency, whilst what is being opposed is highly speculative scenarios as are mutually destroyed here by Shapiro and Orgel, even before I sic Berlinski's elegant but eviscerating review on the quivering remnants of the fratricide. Objections to inductively established principles are only to be considered on solid empirical warrant. In short, no empty materialistic speculations and a prioris please. Here is a slice of Berlinski's conclusion that draws out my point on speculations and a prioris:

At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed: First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry. These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought. That, indeed, may be why a number of biologists have lately reported a weakening of their commitment to the RNA world altogether, and a desire to look elsewhere for an explanation of the emergence of life on earth. "It's part of a quiet paradigm revolution going on in biology," the biophysicist Harold Morowitz put it in an interview in New Scientist, "in which the radical randomness of Darwinism is being replaced by a much more scientific law-regulated emergence of life." Morowitz is not a man inclined to wait for the details to accumulate before reorganizing the vista of modern biology. In a series of articles, he has argued for a global vision based on the biochemistry of living systems rather than on their molecular biology or on Darwinian adaptations. His vision treats the living system as more fundamental than its particular species, claiming to represent the "universal and deterministic features of any system of chemical interactions based on a water-covered but rocky planet such as ours." This view of things - metabolism first, as it is often called - is not only intriguing in itself but is enhanced by a firm commitment to chemistry and to "the model for what science should be." It has been argued with great vigor by Morowitz and others. It represents an alternative to the RNA world. It is a work in progress, and it may well be right. Nonetheless, it suffers from one outstanding defect. There is as yet no evidence that it is true . . .

More, here.kairosfocus

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:02 PM

12

12

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Petruska:

Replicators can exist and evolve without cell membranes and cellular machinery.

Where?

The minimum level of complexity for a replicator is not known, but if it can be known it will be discovered by research, not bloviation.

You need parts- you know the spare parts required to do the replication. A replicator without spare parts is worse than pancakes without syrup.

I get the feeling that some here actually fear research into possible scenarios for the origin of life. They certainly aren’t enthusiastic

Research seems to strengthen the design inference.Joseph

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

12:01 PM

12

12

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

That same logical system that depends on the law of non-contradiction is the same logical system that requires an uncaused cause.

If you say all crows are black, and I show you a white crow, what does that say about your assertion? Causation is something we observe in our everyday lives, but it cannot be asserted as something that is self-evidently true. There is no logical reason why the sequences of events we observe could not be coincidence, and therse is no definitive test to disprove this hypothesis. Some people, and I think some who frequent this forum, believe in an omniscient being. From the point of view of an omniscient being there is no time and all things are concurrent. The appearance of cause and effect have no meaning outside time. So whatever your heart's desire, the issues of causation and first cause are not settled. Youn can rant and whine and stomp your feet, but I am simply not impressed with argument from "because I said so." You solution is ad hoc. The concept of first cause is simply tacked on to a hopeless infinite regress. It serves no purpose but to rescue an axiom that cannot be rescued.Petrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

11:47 AM

11

11

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Life as we know it involves both metabolism and self-replication intertwined inescapably

So what? That says nothing about the earliest history of life. Pontificating is not research. Announcing the results of research before it's done is not science. It's not even pseudoscience.Petrushka

August 10, 2010

August

08

Aug

10

10

2010

11:34 AM

11

11

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link