Lost marbles (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, October 25, 2009, 15:46 (5300 days ago) @ xeno6696


> > > When you take an argument that says "Life is so complex, it must have been designed," you make a series of assumptions to unanswered philosophical questions.
> > 
> > I don't know what the 'unanswered questions'are. What are they?-You have not answered my question, asking for indentification of 'unanswered questions'. 
> > > 
> > > First and foremost, you have to assume that a designer exists. You HAVE to assume it because there is no way to independently verify the existence of a designer.-Look below. Absolute proof is impossible. We agree. I have assumed a 'designer' beyond a reasonable doubt, our old friend Adler.
> > 
> > I still stick to my simplistic belief I have stated before. If we find that initial true life is so complex,then the odds against its appearance will become so enormous that chance is negated, and we will have a default form of proof. Absolulte proof is impossible.
> > 
> 
> David, help me out here. This belief you talk of...
> Alright, from my perspective you're saying that chance can be negated. But chance can ONLY be negated if you find positive evidence for a creator; something more than an inference or an implication. Since nearly all scientific arguments are essentially normalized to exclude chance in the first place, this places you in difficult water. -Do you mean there can never be probability limits? 
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > Thirdly, you make an assumption that the creator is natural. 
> > 
> > No I think he is supernatural. And finally, as I read George and you, Matt, I think you both have an element of philosophic truth.
> 
> Again, the supernatural assertion means that it is separated from nature. Otherwise, the word "supernatural" wouldn't exist. God is supernatural or he's not.-Does 'supernatural' only have YOUR meaning. I can easily imagine the supernatural operating in the natural world. After all, we have no idea what lies behind the quantum wall of uncertainty, but it is here in the world we perceive.
> 
> You mentioned recently (at least I think you did) that god and we ARE the universe? (Certainly sounds panentheistic.) If that is true, it recreates the philosophical dilemma I discussed before about the pointlessness of a god that is inseparable from everything else. -I don't think that is pointless. Flew has gone all the way to Christianity, and certainly, in that case we have God's son running around on Earth.
> 
> In the final part, you mention abiogenesis again. The problem I have with the assertion that "it must be complex," is that you are used to seeing the end product of all that biochemistry. You can't think simple because simple's never existed inside of the world you know and understand. At least in my case, I don't feel like hedging my bets when I know the bloodhounds are still on the trail.-Here you are confused about my thinking. I'll repeat what I have said before. Early origin of life is not life. It will probably be inorganic molecules, perhaps with some small carbon molecules, in an energy producing loop. This is as simple as it will ever be. Fully alive single celled organisms, that is energy producing, reproducing, DNA coded cells are extremely complex. The DNA in Archaia is different than the DNA in all other bacteria. The two lines are not related and that may mean that there are two lines of origin of life. But, even mycoplasma pathogenic bacteria, quite small in DNA, are extremely complex. 
> 
> [EDIT]
> As usual I didn't tie the two sections together. 
> 
> Proving that we were designed means that you have to find positive proof that we were created. You say you're a panentheist, which to me means that the universe lies "within" God, crudely stated. However, for our purposes, the only way we could find positive proof of this is to... what? -As I said, it is to reach a probability limit that rules out chance.