25 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf life can be created from scratch in a laboratory it would show that there is no magical ingredient to life. In other words, it would show that divine intervention with a "breath of life" or some such is not required. As such all it does is fail to rule out either of your options. It does not support option A preferentially as to demonstrate that you'd need to find evidence of a designer, such as a water mark. The Miller-Urey experiments were more relevant to demonstrating the possibility of abiogenesis.
Which of these two scenarios is most probable?
A) intelligent life arises from non-life by an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
B) intelligent life arises from non-life by some dumb random processes without an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
I didn't say anything about God did it. Put on your reading glasses.
I did not agree that scient ...[text shortened]... n (something non-living) is a feeble attempt at a strawman. I am so sorry if you can't see that.
A non-divine intelligent designer for all life on Earth doesn't make much sense. There would be the problem of how the designer came into being, and quite why they would do it. It lacks explanatory power in the way that infinite recursions do.
25 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt depends on the circumstances. That is one of the reasons for my assertion in the OP. Probability calculations on minimal information are meaningless.
Which of these two scenarios is most probable?
A) intelligent life arises from non-life by an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
B) intelligent life arises from non-life by some dumb random processes without an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
I didn't say anything about God did it. Put on your reading glasses.
I can read perfectly well thank you.
I did not agree that scientists have created life in the lab. All I am saying is even if they did, that would support option A not B.
So whether the did or they didn't would, according to you, support A not B? Seems to me that you have a problem understanding logic.
You comparing life (something living) to the sun (something non-living) is a feeble attempt at a strawman. I am so sorry if you can't see that.
No, it isn't a strawman at all. Please look up the meaning of that word as you apparently don't know what it means.
So what about your argument depends on the object being created in a lab being living? Oh yes, you didn't actually make an argument, you just made some rather ridiculous statements about supporting A not B whether or not scientists have created life in a lab.
So these two scientists finally are able to create life in a lab and then challenge God to a duel.
One scientist stepped forward and told God that they were able to create life and that his services were not needed. In fact, he would demonstrate in front of all to see.
The scientist then began getting his equipment ready and amino acids ready and then realized he had forgotten one vital ingredient, the dirt. The scientist then stepped forward and asked God for some dirt to which God replied, "Dirt? Get your own dirt".
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
25 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhy are you so reluctant to mention 'God' when that is clearly where you are coming from? It's bizarre.
Which of these two scenarios is most probable?
A) intelligent life arises from non-life by an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
B) intelligent life arises from non-life by some dumb random processes without an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
I didn't say anything about God did it. Put on your reading glasses.
I did not agree that scient ...[text shortened]... on the above scenario. But then again you could also just use common sense to make a conclusion.
It's akin to when a Jehovah Witness comes to your door and doesn't immediately make clear who they are. (Sorry Robbie).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Apr 16
9 edits
This keeps coming up so I thought it worthy of its own thread.
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Is anyone able to counter this assertion? ie can anyone give a reasonable scenario in which such a probability can be calculation and have useful meaning?
Question to any participant:
If a theist uses probability analysis to demonstrate that life COULD indeed have conceivably begun "at random" or "without the aid of God" is that a legitimate proposal or is it nonsense ?
I am trying to ascertain from posters if such analysis of probability make SENSE when used as evidence to support Atheism but NONSENSE when used as evidence to support Theism ?
And I have a second question.
If an Atheist Biologist uses probability analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of random mutation and natural selection to support evolution theory is this necessarily nonsense or does it make some sense ?
Note, in either case I do not ask if the model proposed is totally non-problematic. I only ask if the thought to apply a statistical model by the Evolutionist is NONSENSE ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Apr 16
1 edit
This keeps coming up so I thought it worthy of its own thread.
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Is anyone able to counter this assertion? ie can anyone give a reasonable scenario in which such a probability can be calculation and have useful meaning?
Participants, in the challenge above would it not be logical to take the words "reasonable scenario" to mean a scenario which is not totally free from any possible argument over paramaters ?
If so then the bar is only set to "reasonable scenario" and not "infallible precision in all parameters and in all respects."
Who agrees with this ?
25 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkCan you show one such a probability calculation?
Which of these two scenarios is most probable?
A) intelligent life arises from non-life by an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
B) intelligent life arises from non-life by some dumb random processes without an intelligent intervention/mechanism.
I didn't say anything about God did it. Put on your reading glasses.
I did not agree that scient ...[text shortened]... on the above scenario. But then again you could also just use common sense to make a conclusion.
25 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd why are you trying to ascertain this? Do you believe I implied it in any way? Or is it your own theory that you think makes sense? If the former, no I did not. If the latter, then I doubt anyone is going to agree with you, and I think it is a ridiculous idea.
I am trying to ascertain from posters if such analysis of probability make SENSE when used as evidence to support Atheism but NONSENSE when used as evidence to support Theism ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why are you so reluctant to mention 'God' when that is clearly where you are coming from? It's bizarre.
It's akin to when a Jehovah Witness comes to your door and doesn't immediately make clear who they are. (Sorry Robbie).
Why are you so reluctant to mention 'God' when that is clearly where you are coming from? It's bizarre.
Do you think that some Evolutionists avoid the word "random" in a equally peculiar way?
As some one might ask "Why are you seeming to shy away from the word God?" I think it could be asked likewise "Why are you appearing to avoid or shy away from the word random" in your discussion of Evolution ? "
I sometimes notice with some atheists a bizarre avoidance of the word "random". Why is that?
Is it possible that they realize the ridiculousness asserting that the entire biosphere was produced without any direction given to the process of Evolution ?
25 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipWhat role do you imagine randomness plays in the theory of evolution?Why are you so reluctant to mention 'God' when that is clearly where you are coming from? It's bizarre.
Do you think that some Evolutionists avoid the word "[b]random" in a equally peculiar way?
As some one might ask "Why are you seeming to shy away from the word God?" I think it could be asked likewise "Why are you appearing t ...[text shortened]... that the entire biosphere was produced without any direction given to the process of Evolution ?[/b]
25 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipBecause it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I sometimes notice with some atheists a bizarre avoidance of the word "random". Why is that?
The throw of a die can be considered random.
A chemical reaction is should not.
When it comes to probability in particular, the word 'random' has a very specific meaning that does not apply to the way it is often used with reference to evolution or the origin of life.
I avoid using it purely because I don't think it is the best word to describe the scenario.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
IIya Prigogine was a recipient of the Nobel prize in Chemistry.. He wrote in the magazine Physics Today the following:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of the spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore improbable, even on the scale of billions of years."
That old bible thumping Creationists needs to be taught a lesson. Go for it you Athiests!
He didn't understand Evolution !
Now I would say that if "the spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is ... improbable" even given billions of years, an alternative explanation is that the generation of life was intelligently directed.
Ie - not random (too "improbable" ) and possibly with God life arose. The alternative proposal is not nonsense.
If one theory shows weakness its fair to propose a better one. The generation of life was purposely guided, directed by some engineering intelligent agent.
"Oh that quote is too old, 1972."
Some more recent viewpoint from a secular academic is in order then.
Something secular of skepticism of Neo-Darwinian evolution and more recent - 2012.
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False is a 2012 book by Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University.
In the book, Nagel argues that the materialist version of evolutionary biology is unable to account for the existence of mind and consciousness, and, therefore, is, at best, incomplete. He writes that mind is a basic aspect of nature, and that any philosophy of nature that cannot account for it is fundamentally misguided.[1] He argues that the standard physico-chemical reductionist account of the emergence of life – that it emerged from a series of accidents, acted upon by the mechanism of natural selection — flies in the face of common sense. [2]
[my bolding]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos
25 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipA believer may never be able to 'prove' that God 'did it'.Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
IIya Prigogine was a recipient of the Nobel prize in [b] Chemistry.. He wrote in the magazine Physics Today the following:
"The pro ...[text shortened]... common sense.[/b] [2]
[my bolding]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos[/b]
An atheist may never be able to 'prove' that Nothing 'did it'.
Both are theories, and both require the same amount of faith. At this moment in time, zero proof can be given for either one.
At the simplest level, I personally choose to believe that a 'Creator' 'did it'. Learning who this 'Creator' is, is quite another matter.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Twhitehead's contention is that it is NONSENSE , not to attempt to PROVE God did it, but to even use probability analysis to demonstrate evidence that non-random direction had to be involved. And by that some people could conceivably speak of God.
A believer may never be able to 'prove' that God 'did it'.
An atheist may never be able to 'prove' that Nothing 'did it'.
Both are theories, and both require the same amount of faith. At this moment in time, zero proof can be given for either one.
At the simplest level, I personally choose to believe that a 'Creator' 'did it'. Learning who this 'Creator' is, is quite another matter.
His contention is that we have no right to even apply statistical probability to the problem of life's origin. It is NONSENSE to even talk about it.
I don't think that is right.
I think that is overkill to the point of arrogance and bigotry.
I am not talking about PROOF. I am only speaking of a reasonable weighting of the evidence to affirm DIRECTION of an intelligence in life's formation.