Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well there we go: Abiogenesis and evolution is scientific and it is not a problem for For_The_Kingdom. Why are you here again?

What?

Incorrect. Both are scientific because it is backed by empirical evidence.

And when will I get to see this invisible empirical evidence?

That's the thing, we have done all three and all you can do is hand wave it away as "speculation."

Observation: I observe dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, birds producing birds.

Repeated Experiment: With selective breeding, I can breed many different varieties of dogs, cats, and birds. But throughout this selective breeding, the dogs will remain dogs, cats/cats, birds/birds.

Prediction: Based on what I observed, and based on all of the selective breeding experiments that mankind has ever conducted throughout the history of the universe, I predict that in a million years, dogs will always produce dogs, cats will always produce cats, and birds will always produce birds.

I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

Well, it just doesn't make sense in the context of programs, it's pretty clear you are just making things up as you go along.

What?

We are still talking about programs aren't we? You can't say that until you define what does "macro program changes" and "micro program changes" mean.

Microevolution: Selective breeding will get you a leoberger breed of dog.
Macroevolution: Selective breeding will get you a bird from a reptile.

We observe one (micro) and not the other (macro).

So what if they are distinct? The point is the are intrinsically linked.

And you are determining this based on what? The mind and the brain CORRELATES, we know that much. The question is, can the brain and the molecules within it adequately explain the origins of mental images of discrete/independent objects...and the answer is, no.

Software can't exist without hardware and hardware runs the software.

And neither one can exist without intelligent design.

I kept telling you, the relationship between hardware and software is well understood, pointing out that software and hardware aren't the same thing is supposed to do what exactly?

It is supposed to demonstrate the fact that if they are NOT the same thing, then the existence of both, as independent things, requires different explanations as to why they exist.

That is why I keep stressing the point; if you are able to shape and mold brain matter and form the perfect human brain, you are still a long way from consciousness..the consciousness is going to require a different kind of explanation that cannot be manifested in any laboratory.

We are talking about one particular instance of a self-building computer, not just computers in general. If you were talking about the latter then brains exist long before consciousness too, again the analogy holds.

Makes no sense.

A computer doesn't need Microsoft to exist, but it runs programs in general. You are muddying the waters by specifying Microsoft Word.

Right, because I had to think of a program that isn't INCLUDED WITH THE COMPUTER...you know, to be synonymous with a brain that doesn't come with the consciousness if the brain was hand-man, like the COMPUTER.

We are talking about origins. There is no chicken and egg - they can only exist along side each other. That's why I used the term "hand-in-hand together."

So you are saying that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, which is why I keep asking where would you get the consciousness from once you've successfully shaped/molded the perfect human brain.

Where would you get it from??

We can have software appears naturally without programming them.

So software appears without programming?

I am claiming that we can make computers that comes with software, and I don't mean pre-installed, or flash ROM's. I mean as a physical part of the computer, one with the computer.

So the computer was "made" to come with the software...but if the software wasn't "made" to come with the computer, then it wouldn't be there, would it? It didn't just come with the computer by default, no...some extra elbow grease was needed, which is my point exactly.

I am also claiming there is a clear analogy with mind/brain. If we naturalism can explain one, then there is no reason to believe we can't explain the other in due time.

That is false. Back to shaping/molding the brain...you may be able to explain how you were able to mold the brain back together, but you will never get that consciousness back into the brain.

It just ain't happening.

The mind comes with the brain. You build a brain, you get consciousness for free, just like computers.

Yet there are plenty brains at the morgue without this "free" consciousness.

But we DO see the molecules interacting in a certain way.

So what? Even if the molecules inside my brain actually formed into the image of an apple, how in the hell am I able to see the image? My eyes isn't looking at the image...and I don't even need to look inside my brain to see the image...yet I can see the image.

The molecules are not the apple..and the apple isn't the molecules...yet, the image is there.

There is absolutely no explanation for this kind of stuff on naturalism. Theism provides the best explanation.

Because there is molecules interacting in a certain way that says apple, I told you that already.

Yeah, and I don't accept everything that I am "told"...especially if it doesn't make sense.

Again, my response to that was/is; there is nothing about the molecules that says "apple"...the molecules in my brain have absolutely NOTHING to do with apples, and the apple that I am thinking of have absolutely NOTHING to do with the molecules....yet, you are giving me this lame answer such "the molecules interacting in a certain way will give your mind the thought of an apple".

If you look at the molecules inside my brain, you won't see anything related to apples...and if you look at (or inside) any apple, you won't see anything related to the molecules in my brain.

Yet you are sitting there telling me that it is based on the interaction of molecules inside my brain that I am thinking of the apple?

Complete and utter nonsense.

Don't know what gave you that impression. I was explaining the manifestation of the mere image of the apple - it is the interaction of molecules.

Same answer as above. It is just a lame answer with no explanatory value whatsoever..and it certainly ain't scientific.

Again what made you say that the image of physical object that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the molecules?

Because the molecules themselves; there is nothing about them as individual molecules or COLLECTIVE molecules that says anything about or related to apples.

All you have is a circular argument: Images in a mind has nothing to do with molecules, therefore interactions of molecules does not explain images in a mind. Interactions of molecules does not explain images in a mind therefore imagines in a mind has nothing to do with molecules.

Yet, you aren't able to give me any scientific explanation as to how consciousness originated and how the interaction of molecules will form IMAGES of independent objects that they (molecules) have absolutely nothing to do with whatsoever.

Sure, but evolutionary algorithms don't.

Abiogenesis problem on the naturalistic worldview.

The mind, obviously. Analogous to the software of a computer.

And what is "the mind"? Is it the molecules? When you are sad, is your the "molecules" sad? When you are happy, is the "molecules" happy? The answer is obviously no to both questions...so who is feeling these emotions?

It aint the brain, it aint the molecules...who is it?

It's almost as if you didn't listen to a word I said about the immaterial "self" can be accounted for as the interaction of molecules in the very material brain.

Nonsense. If it is the molecules that interact in order for you to feel an emotion or think of an image, you are not accounting for the "who" in the scenario..."who" is feeling the emotion? The emotion has to correspond to the "person" that is feeling it.

Again, an unaccounted-for third party in the mix LOL.

You say clearly, yet the argument you used would also imply that software aren't emergent property of a computer. Which is clearly false.

That's why I said your objections against mind/body are the result of misconception of the software/hardware relationship.

No need to attack straw man, now. I said that was a bad analogy on my part. I moved on to attacking the absurdity of mind/body naturalism head-on at its core.

They clearly aren't independent. You can't get software without hardware, the existence of one does necessary entail the existence of the other. Again the software/hardware relationship is well understood.

Sure, they are so understood that the existence of both requires intelligent design LOL.

Okay, if there is nothing "extra" with software/hardware, why do you think there is something extra with mind/brain?

Deal with what I said above before you ask such a question.

Sure there is a difference, but you are doing the former, not the latter despite your protest. Hence my earlier point re: It cannot be explained yet, that's quite a different proposition to "it can never be explained."

So basically, "just because science can't explain it now doesn't mean that it won't be able to explain it later".

Same thing as a Christian saying "Just because Jesus didn't return in 2016 doesn't mean that he won't return in 2017".

Same concept.

Wrong. "Nature of the gaps" would be something like "the God hypothesis cannot explain it, therefore nature did it." There is no justification for accuse me of saying anything like that.

Wait a minute, you just said above that it may be explained later (science will explain it)...so, science will explain how it was done = nature did it.

Yeah. It's about time believers stop appealing to it.

Old school rapper Ice T gave a great response to the question of gun control in America. He said "I will give up my guns when everyone else gives up theirs".

Kinda the same thing going on here; "I will stop appealing to God when naturalists stop appealing to Mother Nature".

[Bust Nak]

What?

Just pointing out your inconsistencies.

And when will I get to see this invisible empirical evidence?

Whenever you are ready, I've personally presented some here in this forum.

Observation: I observe dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, birds producing birds.

Repeated Experiment: With selective breeding, I can breed many different varieties of dogs, cats, and birds. But throughout this selective breeding, the dogs will remain dogs, cats/cats, birds/birds.

Prediction: Based on what I observed, and based on all of the selective breeding experiments that mankind has ever conducted throughout the history of the universe, I predict that in a million years, dogs will always produce dogs, cats will always produce cats, and birds will always produce birds.

I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

Well there you go. Evolution is backed by observation, repeated experiment and the prediction checks out.

What?

Just pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about.

Microevolution: Selective breeding will get you a leoberger breed of dog.
Macroevolution: Selective breeding will get you a bird from a reptile.

That doesn't tell me what macro changes mean in the context of programs.

We observe one (micro) and not the other (macro).

Well as far as biology goes, incorrect, we have observed both.

And you are determining this based on what?

By the fact that software cannot exist independent from hardware.

The mind and the brain CORRELATES, we know that much. The question is, can the brain and the molecules within it adequately explain the origins of mental images of discrete/independent objects...

And the answer is sure, why not, because computer hardware and the molecules within it adequately explain the origins of immaterial images of discrete/independent objects.

And neither one can exist without intelligent design.

Incorrect, again I point to the existence of evolutionary algorithms.

It is supposed to demonstrate the fact that if they are NOT the same thing, then the existence of both, as independent things, requires different explanations as to why they exist.

Okay? So that's moot now given software and hardware are not independent.

That is why I keep stressing the point; if you are able to shape and mold brain matter and form the perfect human brain, you are still a long way from consciousness..the consciousness is going to require a different kind of explanation that cannot be manifested in any laboratory.

What made you think that?

Makes no sense.

Unsurprising, but help me help you, what exactly is it you are having problem with?

Right, because I had to think of a program that isn't INCLUDED WITH THE COMPUTER...you know, to be synonymous with a brain that doesn't come with the consciousness if the brain was hand-man, like the COMPUTER.

Well there you go. You KNEW there are programs that comes with the computer, you have just sunk your own argument.

So you are saying that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, which is why I keep asking where would you get the consciousness from once you've successfully shaped/molded the perfect human brain.

Well the answer isn't going the change - given that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, I would obviously get consciousness from the brain itself after I've successfully shaped/molded the perfect human brain. Do you even know what you are asking about?

So software appears without programming?

That's right, not just software, but hardware too. There are actually such things as evolutionary circuit boards.

So the computer was "made" to come with the software...but if the software wasn't "made" to come with the computer, then it wouldn't be there, would it? It didn't just come with the computer by default, no...some extra elbow grease was needed, which is my point exactly.

That's hardly worth mentioning. Of course a computer isn't made with software included then software wouldn't be included; and a computer that is made with software include then software would be included. Why did you felt you had to point out such trivial stuff?

That is false. Back to shaping/molding the brain...you may be able to explain how you were able to mold the brain back together, but you will never get that consciousness back into the brain.

Why not? You do know what the term "emergent property" mean right?

Yet there are plenty brains at the morgue without this "free" consciousness.

Those aren't operational, they are missing the interaction of molecules that I was talking about. That's like pointing to a smashed up computer and saying software is magical.

So what? Even if the molecules inside my brain actually formed into the image of an apple, how in the hell am I able to see the image? My eyes isn't looking at the image...and I don't even need to look inside my brain to see the image...yet I can see the image.

The molecules are not the apple..and the apple isn't the molecules...yet, the image is there.

That's the interaction of molecules I was talking about.

There is absolutely no explanation for this kind of stuff on naturalism.

Not yet there isn't. But you were making a far stronger claim. You were saying there can never be explanation for this kind of stuff on naturalism, even in principle. Pointing out that we don't have an explanation yet doesn't help your case one bit.

Yeah, and I don't accept everything that I am "told"...especially if it doesn't make sense.

I am not asking you to accept it, I don't expect you to accept it. All I am doing, is demonstrating that the consciousness is not beyond naturalism in principle.

Again, my response to that was/is; there is nothing about the molecules that says "apple"...the molecules in my brain have absolutely NOTHING to do with apples, and the apple that I am thinking of have absolutely NOTHING to do with the molecules....

I've already pointed out your reasoning in circular: Image of an apple has nothing to do with molecules, therefore interactions of molecules does not explain "apple". Interactions of molecules does not explain image of an apple therefore image of an apple has nothing to do with molecules.

Because the molecules themselves; there is nothing about them as individual molecules or COLLECTIVE molecules that says anything about or related to apples.

Talk about a copout. You think the image of physical object that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the molecules because there is nothing about them as individual molecules or COLLECTIVE molecules that says anything about or related to apples. It's a question begging fallacy.

Yet, you aren't able to give me any scientific explanation as to how consciousness originated and how the interaction of molecules will form IMAGES of independent objects that they (molecules) have absolutely nothing to do with whatsoever.

First of all, I can't give you an actual scientific explanation how consciousness originated because there isn't one yet - we are only beginning to explore our brains. All I have is some general idea, i.e. what I kept referring to as interaction of molecules.

Secondly, there is no reason to think IMAGES of independent objects has nothing to do with molecules in the brain. On the contrary there are very good scientific reasons to think mental images has everything to do with the molecules in the brain.

Abiogenesis problem on the naturalistic worldview.

What problem is that? That we don't have a working model for abiogenesis? We've been though that extensively - we are working on it.

And what is "the mind"? Is it the molecules?

And the interaction there of.

When you are sad, is your the "molecules" sad? When you are happy, is the "molecules" happy? The answer is obviously no to both questions...so who is feeling these emotions?

Me obviously.

It aint the brain, it aint the molecules...who is it?

It IS the brain, it IS the molecules, I AM the brain and the interaction of molecules there of.

Nonsense. If it is the molecules that interact in order for you to feel an emotion or think of an image, you are not accounting for the "who" in the scenario...

Why on Earth would you think that? Why do you think "I" cannot be the same thing as the molecules that interact?

"who" is feeling the emotion? The emotion has to correspond to the "person" that is feeling it.

I am the one who is feeling it.

No need to attack straw man, now. I said that was a bad analogy on my part. I moved on to attacking the absurdity of mind/body naturalism head-on at its core.

You may have backed away from the software/hardware analogy, but I haven't. There is a one to one correspondence between software/hardware and mind/brain in naturalism. Nor does what you said here changes the fact that the "attack" you used can still be apply also to computers even if you don't want to focus on analogies.

Sure, they are so understood that the existence of both requires intelligent design LOL.

Incorrect, again I point to the existence of evolutionary software and hardware.

Deal with what I said above before you ask such a question.

Okay, if there is nothing "extra" with software/hardware, why do you think there is something extra with mind/brain?

So basically, "just because science can't explain it now doesn't mean that it won't be able to explain it later".

Same thing as a Christian saying "Just because Jesus didn't return in 2016 doesn't mean that he won't return in 2017".

Same concept.

Correct.

Wait a minute, you just said above that it may be explained later (science will explain it)...so, science will explain how it was done = nature did it.

That's right.

Old school rapper Ice T gave a great response to the question of gun control in America. He said "I will give up my guns when everyone else gives up theirs".

Kinda the same thing going on here; "I will stop appealing to God when naturalists stop appealing to Mother Nature".

Well I guess it's kind of the same thing. But I wasn't asking you to stop appeal to God, I was asking you to stop appealing to God-of-the-gaps argument, quite a different demand.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Since I only see things that already exist, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that thousands of years ago, when no-one was conveniently around to see it, that everything owes its existence to a god who said "Let there be Light"

Yet, the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Go to any biologist or chemist and ask them to give you the chemical/elemental breakdown of the human body.
They will tell you that the body is made up of carbon, iron, phosphorus, etc. All of them non-living materials in and of themselves.

Point?

Besides...what does the Bible have to say about our origins?

That God created life.

Aren't we made from clay or dust? Why say the above when your holy book AGREES with us?

My holy book agrees with y'all that intelligent design was not necessary for life to originate?

Wipe the dust off your Bible and read it again.

[For_The_Kingdom]

But all too often, every single occasion where someone posits a supernatural claim, Christians repackage it so that it fits exactly in line with their preestablished beliefs. You're practically obligated to either dismiss all non-Christian supernatural claims, or to address them with biased Christian apologetics.

I dismiss all non-Christian supernatural claims based on the background information that I have with one specific supernatural claim being true (Christianity)...and since I have reasons to believe that the claims of this specific religion is true, that would negate all other religious claims.

You may instantly see some opportunity to jump on my words and make them suit your narrative using rhetorical games

LOL.

but the above paragraph is able to be consistently applied to all supernatural worldviews; in that context, Christian repackaging becomes one of various brands of mental gymnastics suited only for confining beliefs to a strict subset of allowable ideas. It's the same reason that Christians ask questions that only go so far as to invite "Christian" answers, since secular or non-Christian answers jeopardize the worldview.

When the supernatural can be repackaged for literally any religious theme or concept, it loses any practical value, either in understanding unusual phenomena or applying those concepts to everyday life.

You've lost me, pal.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Which you don't do, because you've left the realm of science, of examinable evidence.

If science is not capable of answering my questions, then I am well within my right to go elswhere. And that is the fact of the matter; science is unable to answer questions such as origins (absolute origins)..therefore, I appeal to what IS able to answer such questions (supernaturalism).

Now, if you have problems with that, then simply provide a naturalistic explanation to the questions...and then we can take it from there...but you can't, because you don't HAVE ANY.

All that's left is "Here is the claim that I make, believe it on faith" or some such words.

Something that I never said nor implied.

And no, I don't HAVE to 'come to terms'.

I was just answering your question, sir.

Demanding that a debate opponent just accept one of your claims is a sure sign of the weakness of your position. It is the burden of the person making the claim to provide evidence to do so - however, we can't do that if one is rejecting science, or not using it.

If you can't scientifically prove that life can come from nonlife, then you really shouldn't be on here criticizing me for rejecting science as a methodology for something that it is uncapable of doing.

So you're just going to skip perhaps the most important step of all? Just demand that I accept that there is a god and move on?

Or, you can just continue accepting the idea that a mindless and blind process assembled your entire body, all the way down to the molecular level...and it did it all without a lick of vision or intelligence.

We don't even need to mention the fact that you can't scientifically prove it. Lets just continue attacking views that we believe are absurd, while dismissing/ignoring the absurdity of our own beliefs.

So the life-span of a religion is a factor in your mind as to whether or not its god exists.

No, that was just a fun-fact.

If so, Hinduism should win hands down over Christianity then. It's far older than Christianity.

Christianity sprung from Judaism...and Judaism begins with "In the beginning" (when NOTHING existed)...kinda hard to top the very beginning of the existence of EVERYTHING, isn't it?

Ah, but the Muslims will disagree with you. They'll say that the Bible is a corrupted text, and that they have the real McCoy.

People sure do say anything, don't they?

Why should I believe you that Christianity is the end of it?

Because the Resurrection took place in actual history, according to historical inquiry.

So let me get this straight. You are saying the evidence for the resurrection is historically overwhelming, even though historians, in their professional positions, do not say that.

Just like liamconnor, I challenge you to find me a university history department that promotes the resurrection of Jesus, that is the return to life from death after 3 days of Jesus's body, upon nothing more than historical evidence.

Even if there was a history of historical departments promoting the Resurrection of Jesus and I was able to provide you with such...what would you say?

1. "Oh, you are appealing to authority".
2. "Oh, just because they believe it don't mean its true"

You can always move the goal posts further back, can't you. Besides, some historians may not accept the Resurrection based there own personal biases and/or denials.

All I can do is simply present the evidence, defend the evidence, and attack any opposing beliefs.

When doing history, one needs to be informed as to what is even plausible. As I've said elsewhere, we found the city of Troy (one of them at least). Yet, historians, history professors and teachers do NOT teach that Paris held a beauty contest with three real goddesses.

Case by case basis...what evidence do we have for/against the claims?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Just pointing out your inconsistencies.

Is that right?

Whenever you are ready, I've personally presented some here in this forum.

LOL.

Well there you go. Evolution is backed by observation, repeated experiment and the prediction checks out.

The reptile-bird stuff...that is what I don't observe and can't experiment and/or predict.

Just pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, and I will point out that you don't know what you are talking about...by saying; bruh, you don't know what you are taking about.

That doesn't tell me what macro changes mean in the context of programs.

What it should tell you is that macroevolution is an unobservable, speculative theory...while microevolution is a proven scientific fact.

Well as far as biology goes, incorrect, we have observed both.

We observed a reptile-bird transformation? When? I thought it takes millions of years to occur?

By the fact that software cannot exist independent from hardware.

And neither can exist without intelligent design.

And the answer is sure, why not, because computer hardware and the molecules within it adequately explain the origins of immaterial images of discrete/independent objects.

And computer hardware and the molecules in it were designed, right?

Incorrect, again I point to the existence of evolutionary algorithms.

What does evolutionary algorithms have to do with intelligent human beings creating computers?

Nothing.

Okay? So that's moot now given software and hardware are not independent.

So Microsoft Word is not independent of the CPU?

What made you think that?

Because, again, where would you get the consciousness from? Just give me the scientific answer for the manifestation of a single thought inside of the newly shaped/molded brain that you just created.

Well there you go. You KNEW there are programs that comes with the computer, you have just sunk your own argument.

No, it sunk my ANALOGY...the argument still stands, because to even talk about computer hardware/software is to presuppose intelligent design, which is what I am advocating for.

Face it, you don't have a clue as to how consicousness/thoughts (images of independent objects) originated from mere matter..and if you THINK you have a clue, then simply go in the lab and demonstrate it.

Either do that, or admit that you are speculating, just as you are speculating when it comes to abiogenesis and macroevolution.

Well the answer isn't going the change - given that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, I would obviously get consciousness from the brain itself after I've successfully shaped/molded the perfect human brain. Do you even know what you are asking about?

You are making empty claims, and you know it. What would be the SCIENTIFIC explanation of the emergence of thoughts inside of the brain? If you want the brain to think of an apple, how would you get the IMAGE of an apple inside of the brain?

There is just no answer to this on naturalism, and if there is...answer.

That's right, not just software, but hardware too. There are actually such things as evolutionary circuit boards.

Nonsense.

That's hardly worth mentioning. Of course a computer isn't made with software included then software wouldn't be included; and a computer that is made with software include then software would be included. Why did you felt you had to point out such trivial stuff?

The point is simple, a computer would never get to the point where Microsoft Word evovled into it...the intelligent designer/programmer could either make the software come with the computer, or make it compatible with the computer so that the owner can always add the software for future use.

Either way, intelligent design is involved and there is no escaping the fact.

Why not? You do know what the term "emergent property" mean right?

See, now you are red herring it, trying to attack my knowledge of the term to take away the fact that you are stuck between a rock and an absurd place.

My contention was that if you were able to shape/mold a human brain back together, you won't get consciousness...and you are asking why not? Ok, well, lets do it this way, I will make it even easier for you..

Go to the morgue, and give those dead brains consciousness. Since you make it seem as if getting consciousness is as easy as 1-2-3 in a scenario where you are shaping/molding a brain from scratch...well, at the morgue, there are plenty of brains that are there which are already assembled, they are just missing the consciousness. So, you are already 50% there LOL.

So, where would you get the consciousness and how would you input it into the brain?

Now, I don't know how absurd of a task you think that is, but it isn't any more absurd than YOU contending that a mindless/blind process was able to create human brains and consciousness.

And I would think that you will have an advantage over Mother Nature..because after all, you can see what you are doing, and you will "know" what you are doing...yet, you can't do it, but mother nature can?

Complete and utter nonsense.

Those aren't operational, they are missing the interaction of molecules that I was talking about.

Ok, so even if you had all of the molecules and you made them interact or whatever, where would the thoughts come from? You have to make those molecules "interact" a certain way that will allow the mere image of an apple to manifest itself inside of the brain so the brain can think of the apple.

But then again, who is the person that is thinking of the apple? With the the thought comes personhood, individuality, feelings, emotions, etc.

Just an uphill battle, it is.

That's like pointing to a smashed up computer and saying software is magical.

That is also like contending that there was a time where the universe consisted of dead matter randomly floating into space and now we have all of this organization and structure of this material. ...and some of this "material" even came to life and began to talk.

That's the interaction of molecules I was talking about.

LOL. Yeah, ok.

Not yet there isn't. But you were making a far stronger claim. You were saying there can never be explanation for this kind of stuff on naturalism, even in principle. Pointing out that we don't have an explanation yet doesn't help your case one bit.

It does, because you (personally) can't bridge the gap between inanimate matter and living matter...nor can you bridge the gap between unconsciousness and consciousness.

Even if you were able to create a 3D simulation of what you THINK happened, you will still fall short of bridging the gap...there is no natural mechanism that will get you that stuff.

I am not asking you to accept it, I don't expect you to accept it. All I am doing, is demonstrating that the consciousness is not beyond naturalism in principle.

Do you have any reasons to think that it isn't? I gave you my reasons why it is beyond the scope of naturalism as far as principal, practibility, and simply LOGIC.

I've already pointed out your reasoning in circular: Image of an apple has nothing to do with molecules, therefore interactions of molecules does not explain "apple". Interactions of molecules does not explain image of an apple therefore image of an apple has nothing to do with molecules.

Nonsense, you said that the interactions of the molecules causes the image of an apple to manifest inside the brain...and you gave no explanation, neither logical nor scientific, why this is the case. It was/is just an empty statement that you keep making with no justification whatsoever.

The image of an apple is an independent entity that corresponds to an independent physical object.

The philosophical question is simple; how can the "molecules" in my brain interact in a way that will be about something totally independent from it.

To give a good analogy to the situation..that would be similar to a circumstance of every time I crack two eggs inside of a bowl and add a cup of pepper..and the eggs and pepper inside of the bowl somehow/someway forms the undoubted image of the the Batman logo.

And notice I said undoubted image...that IS the logo inside of the bowl. And also notice that I said EVERY TIME. Every time I do it, it happens.

How can these two pieces of matter (eggs/pepper) be about something that is completely independent from it? It can't happen.

Talk about a copout. You think the image of physical object that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the molecules because there is nothing about them as individual molecules or COLLECTIVE molecules that says anything about or related to apples. It's a question begging fallacy.

LOL. You are drowning, kid.

First of all, I can't give you an actual scientific explanation how consciousness originated because there isn't one yet - we are only beginning to explore our brains. All I have is some general idea, i.e. what I kept referring to as interaction of molecules.

So, basically "I can't give you an actual scientific explanation how consciousness originated because there isn't one yet, but I can sure speculate".

Cool.

Secondly, there is no reason to think IMAGES of independent objects has nothing to do with molecules in the brain. On the contrary there are very good scientific reasons to think mental images has everything to do with the molecules in the brain.

Ok, so tell me straight up; what does the molecules inside my brain have to do with the image that I am thinking of?

What problem is that? That we don't have a working model for abiogenesis? We've been though that extensively - we are working on it.

No problems there.

And the interaction there of.

But the molecules aren't thinking, are they?

Me obviously.

You who? When you are sad, the molecules isn't sad, neither is the brain. Who is sad??? Who!!!!!!!!!!

It IS the brain, it IS the molecules, I AM the brain and the interaction of molecules there of.

So the brain and the molecules, as individuals, have feelings and emotions?

Why on Earth would you think that? Why do you think "I" cannot be the same thing as the molecules that interact?

Because if that were the case, then your molecules would be sentient, wouldn't they?

I am the one who is feeling it.

Who are you? Looks like you are going through an identity crisis. When you are sad, is your molecules sad? Is your brain sad?

You may have backed away from the software/hardware analogy, but I haven't. There is a one to one correspondence between software/hardware and mind/brain in naturalism. Nor does what you said here changes the fact that the "attack" you used can still be apply also to computers even if you don't want to focus on analogies.

"I will continue to attack positions that you don't hold".

Incorrect, again I point to the existence of evolutionary software and hardware.

Abiogenesis problem.

Okay, if there is nothing "extra" with software/hardware, why do you think there is something extra with mind/brain?

The "extra" is the intelligent designer that created and programed the computer. You may as well leave the computer stuff alone, because you are presupposing intelligent design and since you want to continue making the relationship between software/hardware synonymous with mind/body...then all I have to do is simply point out the fact that software/hardware are products of intelligent design and in order to draw any parallels, one must assume that mind body is also designed.

Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Well I guess it's kind of the same thing. But I wasn't asking you to stop appeal to God, I was asking you to stop appealing to God-of-the-gaps argument, quite a different demand.

How is that any different than you saying "In due time, science will figure it out". That is an appeal to science to fill a gap of knowledge, right?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 177 by For_The_Kingdom]

Tiresome.
A worm becomes a butteryfly.
Evolution?
Religion says: "Yes, it is obvious that the worm is undergoing evolution."
Science: "No, that is not evolution, just a normal life cycle."
Religion: "Thanks Science, you just saved me my beliefs."

Science: "What? You think that a process you desire to BE evolution is evolution, but when it is not, it justifies religion?"
Religion: "Yup, thanks."

Science: "So, when we observe evolution in a prescribed, predictable way, that results in grubs becoming beetles, and so on, but not grubs evolving INTO beetles - that ISN'T good enough proof?!"
Religion: "Of course not, that's stupid. I want to see an man become an ape in front of my eyes."

Science (under his breath): "You should become 'Science,' I watch it all the time."
Religion: What?
Science: "No, nothing."

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 178 by Willum]

When you say this:

Religion says: "Yes, it is obvious that the worm is undergoing evolution."

...you ought to define Religion, since there are thousands, and all do not accept that Larva becoming a butterfly is evolution, in the same way that tadpole to frog, fetus to baby, maggot to fly etc, is called stages of growth in organisms.
Ever organism has a life cycle.

[Willum]

[Replying to theStudent]

Point completely missed.
But I suppose if you saw it any other way, you'd simply have to agree.

It's a good idea you know.
Evolution was an accepted fact before Jesus.
Jesus brought us the Dark Ages, which got rid of evolution and an understanding of abiogenisis' schema.
Why embrace obsolete ignorance in the face of ancient truth?
That doesn't make any sense, does it?