I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.
Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?
(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal
(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
Conservation of energy
Moderator: Moderators
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 149 times
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Post #131
[Replying to post 128 by For_The_Kingdom]
It's not that complicated. As usual, however, when you have no case to make your response is nothing more than hand-waving and dismissal. You have failed to even put a dent in the theory of evolution. Not surprising really since no one has, including the creationist organisations desperate to topple it. Your argument in favour of God has nothing to support it. 'Magic trumps everything' is not really a case.brunumb wrote: "A test tube as large as the oceans of the earth filled with untold chemicals together with billions of years of chemical events is more than enough to suggest that abiogenesis is not only possible, but probable. Far more probable than a magical being uttering a few incantation and poofing living things into existence. Even more so when they contain so many flaws that can't be explained if the source is an intelligent designer, but can be when they are seen as the product of an evolutionary process that is not infallible."
For the Kingdom responded: "?"
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm
Post #132
I find it more alarming no one is attacking this absurd idea that "God is the only other game in town."
What?
How did we get from not having perfectly mapped a phenomenon to blurting out the responsibility of gods in a science-related subforum?
You don't demonstrate the existence of gods by inserting them in the spaces currently under investigation.
Nor do the existence of gods rely on the soundness of arguments. Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence.
The reasoning behind the opposition in these two threads is jaw dropping.
What?
How did we get from not having perfectly mapped a phenomenon to blurting out the responsibility of gods in a science-related subforum?
You don't demonstrate the existence of gods by inserting them in the spaces currently under investigation.
Nor do the existence of gods rely on the soundness of arguments. Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence.
The reasoning behind the opposition in these two threads is jaw dropping.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2284
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1957 times
- Been thanked: 738 times
Post #133
I did just that in post 117 -> http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 615#911615Inigo Montoya wrote: I find it more alarming no one is attacking this absurd idea that "God is the only other game in town."
Agreed. We've been around the block with FtK about those arguments before explaining just that and more. One cannot define something into existence no matter how hard you stomp your feet and play with words.Inigo Montoya wrote: Nor do the existence of gods rely on the soundness of arguments. Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence.
The reasoning behind the opposition in these two threads is jaw dropping.
Lately most of us participating have simply been trying explain that the grossly misrepresented versions of the ToE, etc are not the actual theories. It seems some theists only line of attack is to make up their own theory and fight against that. It's amusing to watch, but some of us hope it's not intentional misdirection and just misunderstanding, thus we try to clear things up. At least we hope readers are getting something out of it because clearly some people are unable to modify their thinking even when presented with proper definitions.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #134
[Replying to post 129 by For_The_Kingdom]
I'm grasping it, but this definition of abiogenesis is your personal definition so we all have to adapt to that in order to try and communicate. Abiogenesis does cover a wide range of possibilities for "life from nonlife", but not comprehensively ALL possibilities even though you are defining it that way.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the idea that potential mechanisms for the origin of life can be categorized as either supernatural (eg. a god of some type) or natural (eg. your all-encompassing definition of abiogenesis). So yes, if the supernatural option is taken off the table that leaves a naturalistic explanation. No problem there, and no reason to believe that a naturalistic explanation is not the correct one and is just waiting to be worked out by science.
This is the kind of statement that is causing the problems. You're right that abiogenesis (FTK definition: any naturalistic origin of life mechanism) may well be false. It can also be the case that a supernatural mechanism is false and abiogenesis is true. But we can all agree (I assume) that life did originate by some means because it does, in fact, exist.
The point is that evolution itself does not care one way or the other which of these two options is correct. As long as life appeared by SOME mechanism, it has something to work with and can proceed. The error is this part of your statement "... if it is possible for abiogenesis to be false, then it is also possible for evolution to be false ... since evolution depends on life originating in the first place." This implies that evolution has some dependence on HOW life originated, and that is not correct. Abiogenesis could be false and life originated by the act of a god, and evolution could proceed just fine and therefore not be false. You're mixing up the obvious (evolution requires life to exist in the first place before it can work), with the idea that evolution depends on HOW that life came to exist.
But this all seems rather moot since you do accept evolution on shorter time scales with incremental changes, so you are apparently not arguing against evolution in general. You just want to place an arbitrary stop in the process when the changes get beyond a certain point that you call "macro" evolution. So the debate should not be concerned with the origin of life or its mechanism at all ... since "macro" evolution doesn't depend on that in any way.
I don't know that to be the case at all. In fact, I think an abiogenesis event of some kind is by far the most likely explanation for the origin of life, and science just hasn't yet worked out the specifics. Taking gods out of the equation is very easy as there has never been any evidence for their existence, and when that is done a naturalistic explanation is what's left, and it makes the most sense.
I think a more correct statement would be that me and others of the atheist persuasion maintain that there is no evidence for the existence of gods, so most likely they don't exist (very different from claiming, positively, that they don't exist).
Show me some evidence that such a creature exists now, or has ever existed, and I'll be happy to put he/she/it back into the mix. But I've never seen any such evidence so I think it is most reasonable to believe that these creatures don't actually exist (except in the minds of people who think they do).
The term "abiogenesis" covers ALL NATURAL hypothesis. Any natural hypothesis that you can think of will fall under the abiogenesis category.
That is the point that you don't seem to be grasping.
I'm grasping it, but this definition of abiogenesis is your personal definition so we all have to adapt to that in order to try and communicate. Abiogenesis does cover a wide range of possibilities for "life from nonlife", but not comprehensively ALL possibilities even though you are defining it that way.
I am saying; if you take God out of the equation, abiogenesis is NECESSARILY true. Do you understand what that means? That mean that if God is out of the picture, abiogenesis absolutely, positively MUST have taken place.
I don't think anyone is arguing with the idea that potential mechanisms for the origin of life can be categorized as either supernatural (eg. a god of some type) or natural (eg. your all-encompassing definition of abiogenesis). So yes, if the supernatural option is taken off the table that leaves a naturalistic explanation. No problem there, and no reason to believe that a naturalistic explanation is not the correct one and is just waiting to be worked out by science.
However, you don't know whether abiogenesis is true...for all we know, abiogenesis may be absolutely, positively FALSE and naturally impossible...and if it is possible for abiogenesis to be false, then it is also possible for evolution to be be false....since evolution depends on life originating in the first place.
This is the kind of statement that is causing the problems. You're right that abiogenesis (FTK definition: any naturalistic origin of life mechanism) may well be false. It can also be the case that a supernatural mechanism is false and abiogenesis is true. But we can all agree (I assume) that life did originate by some means because it does, in fact, exist.
The point is that evolution itself does not care one way or the other which of these two options is correct. As long as life appeared by SOME mechanism, it has something to work with and can proceed. The error is this part of your statement "... if it is possible for abiogenesis to be false, then it is also possible for evolution to be false ... since evolution depends on life originating in the first place." This implies that evolution has some dependence on HOW life originated, and that is not correct. Abiogenesis could be false and life originated by the act of a god, and evolution could proceed just fine and therefore not be false. You're mixing up the obvious (evolution requires life to exist in the first place before it can work), with the idea that evolution depends on HOW that life came to exist.
But this all seems rather moot since you do accept evolution on shorter time scales with incremental changes, so you are apparently not arguing against evolution in general. You just want to place an arbitrary stop in the process when the changes get beyond a certain point that you call "macro" evolution. So the debate should not be concerned with the origin of life or its mechanism at all ... since "macro" evolution doesn't depend on that in any way.
I get your point..but when you take God out of the equation, there are certain implications that comes with it, which is that abiogenesis is necessarily true, which we both know is obviously not the case.
I don't know that to be the case at all. In fact, I think an abiogenesis event of some kind is by far the most likely explanation for the origin of life, and science just hasn't yet worked out the specifics. Taking gods out of the equation is very easy as there has never been any evidence for their existence, and when that is done a naturalistic explanation is what's left, and it makes the most sense.
But the statement wasn't just thrown out there...it was because you and others had maintained that God doesn't exist.
I think a more correct statement would be that me and others of the atheist persuasion maintain that there is no evidence for the existence of gods, so most likely they don't exist (very different from claiming, positively, that they don't exist).
Ok..like I said before; put God back in the mix and we cool.
Show me some evidence that such a creature exists now, or has ever existed, and I'll be happy to put he/she/it back into the mix. But I've never seen any such evidence so I think it is most reasonable to believe that these creatures don't actually exist (except in the minds of people who think they do).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm
Post #135
[Replying to post 134 by DrNoGods]
Acknowledging there is a category for Player 2, titled "Maybe It's Superrnatural" is, in my mind, a serious issue.
The U in UFO is "unidentified." Full stop. It isn't "well maybe it's....". No, it's unidentified. No special magical or transdimensional or supernatural category gets invented for all the things we can potentially conjure up to not feel the disquiet from not knowing something. It's just "we don't know."
Simply put, I don't know what anyone is talking about when they say supernatural. I know what they want it to mean, but it doesn't actually represent anything real. Define it for me. Beyond natural? Unnatural? Super nature? Fantastic. But I still have no idea what anyone is pointing at, or referring to, that exists. If this label gets to head its own category, I need an example of what's in the box. What else is in the box?
Oh, it's all the things people imagine might exist in the absence of a right-this-minute empirically verifiable explanation? Is it synonymous with anything I can possibly dream up that can't be falsified but takes the anxiety out of my ignorance?
Why is the second category not simply "we don't know?" Category one: Stuff we know. Two: Stuff we don't. On what grounds does our impatient ignorance (category 2) get promoted to "well it could be 'superrnatural?'" How is that rational, or even sensible?
I've been accused of holding an anti-superrnatural bias. It's rendered in accusatory tones, even. When the giggling fit subsides I'm left to ponder why this is meant as derogatory. I'm not anti-supernaturalism. It's a nonsense charge until it can be shown supernatural anything is, well, any.. actual.. thing.
Can't use a naturalistic toolbox to verify a supernatural occurrence? Not my problem. Show me what supernatural measuring devices are available, and what a superrnatural occurrence actually is, and how to use the former on the latter, and we'll be headed somewhere worth talking about.
Until then, I see no reason to even grant "superrnatural" as a category that means anything until the supernatural itself is trapped and caught and skinned or whatever it takes to look at it in a jar.
This post is brought to you by the letter G, and a station break from more of you-know-what that's surely coming any moment now.
I'll be the one to argue it, if only because it represents darn near the entirety of playground space given to the theist. And to slightly delay another barrage of listening without hearing, reforming, and arguing against the new mutant idea.I don't think anyone is arguing with the idea that potential mechanisms for the origin of life can be categorized as either supernatural (eg. a god of some type) or natural (
Acknowledging there is a category for Player 2, titled "Maybe It's Superrnatural" is, in my mind, a serious issue.
The U in UFO is "unidentified." Full stop. It isn't "well maybe it's....". No, it's unidentified. No special magical or transdimensional or supernatural category gets invented for all the things we can potentially conjure up to not feel the disquiet from not knowing something. It's just "we don't know."
Simply put, I don't know what anyone is talking about when they say supernatural. I know what they want it to mean, but it doesn't actually represent anything real. Define it for me. Beyond natural? Unnatural? Super nature? Fantastic. But I still have no idea what anyone is pointing at, or referring to, that exists. If this label gets to head its own category, I need an example of what's in the box. What else is in the box?
Oh, it's all the things people imagine might exist in the absence of a right-this-minute empirically verifiable explanation? Is it synonymous with anything I can possibly dream up that can't be falsified but takes the anxiety out of my ignorance?
Why is the second category not simply "we don't know?" Category one: Stuff we know. Two: Stuff we don't. On what grounds does our impatient ignorance (category 2) get promoted to "well it could be 'superrnatural?'" How is that rational, or even sensible?
I've been accused of holding an anti-superrnatural bias. It's rendered in accusatory tones, even. When the giggling fit subsides I'm left to ponder why this is meant as derogatory. I'm not anti-supernaturalism. It's a nonsense charge until it can be shown supernatural anything is, well, any.. actual.. thing.
Can't use a naturalistic toolbox to verify a supernatural occurrence? Not my problem. Show me what supernatural measuring devices are available, and what a superrnatural occurrence actually is, and how to use the former on the latter, and we'll be headed somewhere worth talking about.
Until then, I see no reason to even grant "superrnatural" as a category that means anything until the supernatural itself is trapped and caught and skinned or whatever it takes to look at it in a jar.
This post is brought to you by the letter G, and a station break from more of you-know-what that's surely coming any moment now.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9855
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #136
Right, no one has suggested otherwise.For_The_Kingdom wrote: But if you have aids, you have aids in either Canada or China...so your physical location just doesn't matter as it relates to the internal problem within you.
That is no such problem. The actual problem is "how did life originate naturally from nonliving material." But granted, that problem is going where ever I want it to go...whether this universe, multiverse, Pluto, or Mars. There is no attempt at negating this problem by giving it a different name.Same thing with abiogenesis/panspermia...regardless of where the life originates naturally, the problem is still "life cannot originate naturally from nonliving material".
Because it IS a third alternative.If you are admitting that the concept hasn't change (same thing, different term)..so why was it being used as this third alternative to my contention that there are only two options...God, or natural abiogenesis?
Well, actually, it's already been done. Artificial cell with synthetic DNA has been a thing since 2010.Splitting hairs. Labels are irrelevant in this conversation. I could care less what you call it...can you go in a lab and get the results (sentient life from nonlife). No?
But no on has ever called or implied evolution is a brute fact. That's all on you.Well, back to the original point; you can't call evolution a brute fact if you can't prove that life can originate from nonliving material (if God's existence is negated).
That is indeed all we have but why would that be a considered tight spot though? It's like saying "you are in a tight spot with only a parachute to stop you from going splat when you jump out of the plane," sure a parachute is the only thing I have when I go skydiving, but it is all I need.That, is an OBVIOUS tight spot for naturalists..because they would like to hold tight to the theory of evolution...because that is all they have at this point (of God's nonexistence).
Well you should care, because using the wrong term makes you look ill informed."I don't care whether you call it HPV or warts, Doc...can you CURE IT, that's all I care about".
=
"I don't care whether you call it abiogenesis or panspermia, Mr. Scientist...can you go in a lab and produce it, that's all I care about".
Would it be a problem if we can't though?And I am trying to get you to go in a lab and produce naturalistic results for alleged naturalistic theories.
You asked a question, you were given a correct answer, you objected because you were unawared of the terminology. I even offered the answer you were fishing for - natural and supernatural are the only two alternatives, evolution cannot be true if there is no natural nor supernatural origin of life. That should have been made it obvious there was no attempt to "negating the problem" as you called it.It is/was quite clear that you are splitting hairs..trying to turn non-issues into issues. Panspermia was a concept that never should have been brought up, because it does nothing to address anything that I've said regarding the impossibility of inanimate life originating from nonliving material.
Yes, but you would be factually incorrect to call him a local.Does his "alienship" mean anything if he has aids? Wouldn't he still be an alien with aids?
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #137
[Replying to post 135 by Inigo Montoya]
I certainly agree with you that a supernatural category for anything (origin of life, or anything else) has no legitimacy. The supernatural has never been shown to exist as a real thing in any area of study. But a great number of people do put things into that category, even if it is purely a result of imagination, misunderstanding, ignorance of science, etc.. So my main point was that it is out there as a category for explanation (for some), even though I certainly am in the camp that it shouldn't be. My money is on an abiogenesis event of some type for origin of life, and we just have not yet uncovered the details.
I'll be the one to argue it, if only because it represents darn near the entirety of playground space given to the theist. And to slightly delay another barrage of listening without hearing, reforming, and arguing against the new mutant idea.
I certainly agree with you that a supernatural category for anything (origin of life, or anything else) has no legitimacy. The supernatural has never been shown to exist as a real thing in any area of study. But a great number of people do put things into that category, even if it is purely a result of imagination, misunderstanding, ignorance of science, etc.. So my main point was that it is out there as a category for explanation (for some), even though I certainly am in the camp that it shouldn't be. My money is on an abiogenesis event of some type for origin of life, and we just have not yet uncovered the details.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #138
How about you attack it, junior?Inigo Montoya wrote: I find it more alarming no one is attacking this absurd idea that "God is the only other game in town."
What?
?Inigo Montoya wrote: How did we get from not having perfectly mapped a phenomenon to blurting out the responsibility of gods in a science-related subforum?
?Inigo Montoya wrote: You don't demonstrate the existence of gods by inserting them in the spaces currently under investigation.
So logic/reasoning has no place in life?Inigo Montoya wrote: Nor do the existence of gods rely on the soundness of arguments.
If the conclusion is drawn from sound/valid premises, it does.Inigo Montoya wrote: Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence.
"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing". (1Corin 1:18)Inigo Montoya wrote: The reasoning behind the opposition in these two threads is jaw dropping.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #139
SMH. You are starting to become just too disingenuous for me. I can't just sit back and have people continuously make false statements as it relates to stuff that I know is true.Bust Nak wrote:
But no on has ever called or implied evolution is a brute fact. That's all on you.
I just can't do it, as much as I respect you and enjoy our sparring, .
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm
Post #140
For_The_Kingdom wrote:How about you attack it, junior?Inigo Montoya wrote: I find it more alarming no one is attacking this absurd idea that "God is the only other game in town."
What?
?Inigo Montoya wrote: How did we get from not having perfectly mapped a phenomenon to blurting out the responsibility of gods in a science-related subforum?
?Inigo Montoya wrote: You don't demonstrate the existence of gods by inserting them in the spaces currently under investigation.
So logic/reasoning has no place in life?Inigo Montoya wrote: Nor do the existence of gods rely on the soundness of arguments.
If the conclusion is drawn from sound/valid premises, it does.Inigo Montoya wrote: Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence.
"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing". (1Corin 1:18)Inigo Montoya wrote: The reasoning behind the opposition in these two threads is jaw dropping.
Junior, eh? Well I admit I've entertained inviting you to a head to head for just that reason. It's just your track record of abandonment that stays me. I'd hate to be the reason you end up 0-5.
But if I'm not mistaken you just said "If the conclusion is drawn from sound/valid premises, it does" in response to " Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence."
Would you like to reread that and have another crack at it? Or are you content to stand by the statement that gods spring into existence the moment a sound argument is made in favor of their existence?
PS. The sheer number of "?" replies you post is troubling. I'm reading over what you keep responding to with "?" and none of it strikes me as particularly unclear or confusing. Is it your go-to response when you have no answer, to feign confusion and dodge?
I'll help you out with one that illustrates the point: Name something that exists that only exists by way of sound argument.