Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 08, 2010, 23:17 (5401 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: Why is it more reasonable to conclude that life was designed? We all agree it's not a scientific claim, so I still wonder why taking an unprovable position is more reasonable?
> 
> Your question makes it sound as if the choice is between one provable and one unprovable hypothesis. Do you think it's possible to prove that life came about by accident? From my position on the fence, the choice is between two unproven, unprovable, and highly unlikely hypotheses. (BBella offers a third option, but it also entails some kind of universal intelligence.) These are:
> -Well, at the risk of sounding condescending (and not meaning to), I'm firmly wearing my agnostic hat here. I realize the propositions cut both ways, but as I've stated before, I lean materialist in all things for the simple reason that materialist methods are universally reliable methods to gain knowledge. Whether or not life got here by chance, we can clearly study nature, but we can't really do that about God. I attack theistic interpretations because they make what I consider to be an unwarranted assumption. Though atheists might have a faith, at the very least they're not positing the existence of something that isn't studyable. We can study chance. We can revel in that we've defied the odds; personally I'd like it better if it came because of us instead of outside help. -I too find a false dilemma here, although in my case I take a more Buddhist view: There is also the possibility that our world simply *IS* with no distinction needed as to whether or not it was or wasn't created. We could be projecting a prime cause because we want there to be. (I'm not refuting the big bang here, only that IT wasn't the true beginning of the universe, if one even exists.) This is another unanswerable question, but it is just as valid as chance or God. It is also utterly bleak by the estimations of most western thinkers. However I find it resonates with me. -> 1) That the first living organisms could not only spontaneously get themselves to replicate, but could also spontaneously manufacture the capability for heritable adaptations and innovations. (David has described the scientific technology required.) All of these mechanisms ... not only unique in our experience, but also proving to be far more complex than was once thought ... are necessary for evolution. You may be able to write a computer programme that randomly generates other programmes, but we're talking here of the FIRST programme, and for that you need a designer. So that's one "unreasonable" hypothesis I can't believe in.
> -This goes back to Seth Lloyd's book... at the minimum I can safely make the claim that the universe needed no creator up until the point where abiogenesis is needed. -> 2) That in some unknown dimension, in some unknown form, and from some unknown provenance there exists a universal intelligence of unknown nature which initiated or survived or was inside and outside the Big Bang, and which went on to organize our universe and to create life on Earth. That's the second "unreasonable" hypothesis I can't believe in.
> 
> The choice, then, is belief in one of two prime causes, both of which go beyond the limits of my credulity (ultimately it has to be personal). An amazing scientific discovery or a personal revelation could change all that, but we can only base present beliefs on present knowledge. There's nothing to be proud of in my neutrality. One way or another I've got it horribly wrong.-Lol, and you make the mistake of thinking that there's something wrong with being uncertain. I told you this before, it's quite possibly the bravest position one can take, when you consider that it goes against the fiber of a human being. Our nature is to judge and be done.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"