It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Don't you believe in abiogenesis?
Be honest... You just believe there was one more variable in the equation - God.
Even the Bible says that he formed life from the dust of the Earth.
That's life from non-life. Abiogenesis.
What you are really concerned about is that we left out God in the equation.

I believe that the Universe caused abiogenesis.
You believe that God caused abiogenesis.

And if God DID cause abiogenesis, don't you think there was science behind it, just as there is science behind a rainbow which God supposedly made?

And if that's the case, could we not unravel abiogenesis just as we have unraveled the mysterious rainbow which once seemed so mystical?


I believe in Abiogenesis - I just call it God.

I don't believe God is part of Abiogenesis.

I believe God IS Abiogenesis.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, what gets me is the reliance on stating the naturalist category 'happens by chance'.
there’s no other way it happened unless there was intent.


Again, is it chance that stars go nova producing more complex elements?

yes


And so is it really chance that elements bind to form more complex molecules?
yes


It just feeds the rather inane and pathetic probability arguments I see posted around.
perhaps if you don’t understand probability. Chance means that the more time something natural has to occur, the more likely it will. If the nature of the universe is accepted as cyclical, given enough time nearly anything can happen. Chance is the only drive of the universe within naturalism. If you’re saying it didn’t happen by chance, then you really don’t believe in abiogenesis.


What you all really mean is that there is no obvious telic entity providing motivation/purpose.
within naturalism


I can hang with an element of chance in there. But chemistry is more than chance binding of elements into molecules, and it is quite possible that it is actually inevitable that replicating molecules/organisms form from simpler components under certain conditions.
But those things happen by chance. They don’t have to happen, but they will under the right circumstances given enough time.


At this point we are relying on n=1. So it's hard to know how 'lucky' the formation of life was on earth at this moment. And uncovering potential pathways to life is an area of research, but we have few remnants of this process (cf. evolution) to give us guidance in those efforts.
I believe that life is sprawled all throughout the universe. But because the universe has so much age to it, it is impossible to determine just how lucky we are to exist.


In the supernatural category, the 'natural means not privy to' would just be naturalist, no?
Technically yes, but I’m basing it on human knowledge, not actual knowledge, only after those natural means are discovered would they become natural. Since we are not aware of them at the moment, I’d say they are supernatural.


But, at the heart of the issue, yeah, we have natural means and the possibility for superatural means. I know which side my bets lie, not really needing to rely on personal biases/ideology, just a good dose of historical knowledge and the retreat of god-gap stuffing. Which has tended to be nothing more than a place-holder waiting for the light of science to pierce the fog of ignorance.

Very poetic Mel, and thanks for acknowledging the possibility.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by JPhish
 


Or perhaps the system was set up in such a way that life would result. It need not be just created or random, one or the other. Dualism is not all there is.

Just my two cents.

Well it would be supernatural if that’s the case. Because it would mean the universe itself has intent because it was designed so. A naturalist universe does not claim to have no purpose or intent, it simply is.


Originally posted by TruthParadox
I don't think 'chance' is the right word.

I do


Everything works on cause/reaction.

By chance.


And because everything works on cause/reaction, there is always a reason behind it. The fact that we don't know the reason gives the illusion of chance.
You’re going to have to define your terms. “Reason” can mean many different things.


Example:
The fact that many animals have 2 eyes, 2 ears, and 4 limbs would appear to be chance - until you understand that we all evolved from a similar source. Once you understand that, it's not chance at all... just cause/reaction.
it is still chance, because without chance it wouldn’t have happened . . .


While I understand what you are saying, it's not really fair to say "chance" - because we don't understand the cause/reaction yet.

I’ll believe that chance is the best word to use until presented with a better one. Chance does not imply that we don’t understand it. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of chance.


It sends the wrong message, and creationists will usually misunderstand that word.
it seems like you’re misunderstanding the word at the moment.


Replace the word chance with "unknown natural causes" and I'll agree with that statement.
that euphemism doesn’t work because chance is not reliant on something being unknown. Chance is a natural, not supernatural.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I want to ask a question (because I want the OP to get more points) and stir this pot a little.....

We are talking about 'abiogenesis'.....but most talk seems focused on earth life.

In fact, it seems focused on land-based life that we're familiar with...plus, a few sea creatures that we interact with, nearer the surface.

Allow me to rant, for a bit, about extremophiles....these are lifeforms, ON EARTH, in deep ocean environments that do NOT need oxygen....in fact, they THRIVE in extremely hot water, under extreme pressures.....but, it is still life.

This mere fact would tend to imply that life is tenacious....and spontaneous.

The planet we call 'home'....the Earth, is not unique. It seems so, to us....but that is simple 'anthropormorphism'... (sorry for the spelling..)

It is the incredible height of hubris to assume, just because we can, that we, as Humans, are the 'end-all and be-all'.

Over 100 billion stars, in our Galaxy....over 100 billion other Galaxies.....all separated by time and distance......

EDIT.....forgot to ask the question....here it is....what does everyone think??? (about my earlier comments....)





[edit on 3/7/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, what gets me is the reliance on stating the naturalist category 'happens by chance'.
there’s no other way it happened unless there was intent.


Again, is it chance that stars go nova producing more complex elements?

yes


And so is it really chance that elements bind to form more complex molecules?
yes


So when sulphur burns it's just chance that SO2 is a product? When I take purified water to -10'C its just pure chance it turns solid? Could have become superheated?

All chance, no necessity?

OK, so what does chance mean? Because each time a particular type of star goes nova it produces heavy elements. No necessity? No order? Just chance? Could have turned into a penguin? There might be an element of chance when exactly it will go nova, which stars fit the bill, that a universe survives long enough, but under particular conditions heavy elements are almost certain.

When someone says 'it's ridiculous that life could have developed by chance, the probability of x happening is 1 in 10^123' what do they mean? They are attempting to make an argument that life evolving naturally is so vanishingly small, that a telic entity is required. If we calculate it to be .999, then it's still pure chance? No natural laws and regularities involved. No necessity?

You're taking it in opposition to intent and purpose, as I said, teleology. On one side, chance on t'other teleology. Which is not the case. To even assess probability we would need to have quite a bit of information about the events and its variables.

And you appear to be saying chance or telic intent as well. There is a deterministic feature to nature, no? Is it just pure chance that I will die? It might be chance when I die or how I die. But it's just chance? No feature of my biology? When I was born, it was just chance I was human? Could have also been a penguin?

Evolution is not just chance, for instance. The randomness comes from mutations and external events, both of which are uncorrelated to the needs of the organism. But it's not chance that those most suited to the environment are selected. Chance and necessity.

So the effort to play the chance card is just a way to make the natural argument appear ridiculous and take out the necessity and ordered character of nature.



It just feeds the rather inane and pathetic probability arguments I see posted around.
perhaps if you don’t understand probability. Chance means that the more time something natural has to occur, the more likely it will. If the nature of the universe is accepted as cyclical, given enough time nearly anything can happen. Chance is the only drive of the universe within naturalism. If you’re saying it didn’t happen by chance, then you really don’t believe in abiogenesis.


Not sure I agree. Would also depend on the type of event, otherwise you could fall into the gambler's fallacy.

The driver is natural forces. Stars form across the universe, no telic intent required. Whence chance? p = 1 for stars to form in this universe? And I don't really depend on chance for it. p = 1 for life to develop somewhere in this universe? At least the earth.

We only have one trial. How can we apply frequentist probability? We don't have a universe to keep running multiple trials to understand the bounds. We don't have an earth in the lab to calculate the frequency of events, especially those we have little understanding of, lol. As I said, perhaps it's inevitable for life to evolve on a planet like the earth.



What you all really mean is that there is no obvious telic entity providing motivation/purpose.
within naturalism


Yup, for philosophical/metaphysical naturalism that will be the case.



I can hang with an element of chance in there. But chemistry is more than chance binding of elements into molecules, and it is quite possible that it is actually inevitable that replicating molecules/organisms form from simpler components under certain conditions.
But those things happen by chance. They don’t have to happen, but they will under the right circumstances given enough time.


Of course.

So it would be inevitable with time? Say that it takes a universe around 1 billion years to cycle enough stars to produce carbon. If the universe survives 500,000,000 years, p = 0. If it survives 1 billion, lets say p = .95, survives 2 billion, p = 0.9999999999999999999.

Is chance that important at 2 billion? Has necessity and order no influence?

Lets say it takes me around 20 hours to build a model car. But I only have 10. It's an act full of intent, but it would likely be low p for me to finish in 10hrs. Probably something like p =.95 to finish in 20hrs, and p = .9999999999 to finish in 40hrs.

Just pure chance? No intent involved?



At this point we are relying on n=1. So it's hard to know how 'lucky' the formation of life was on earth at this moment. And uncovering potential pathways to life is an area of research, but we have few remnants of this process (cf. evolution) to give us guidance in those efforts.
I believe that life is sprawled all throughout the universe. But because the universe has so much age to it, it is impossible to determine just how lucky we are to exist.


So how can we apply probability arguments? It could be p = .001 or p =.9999999. It's actually p = 1, though. As life did form. All you attempt to do is push the probability argument to p = 1 by invoking supernatural powers.

So, for example, some creationists makes a crap attempt at producing a probability argument based on pure chance (which is essentially your claim), completely ignoring all the simultaneous trials and necessity in nature, with no real ability to understand the variables underpinning the calculation of the event, then produces 1 in 10^134 or something. They look at a protein and pull a number from their anus. Then says no way for nature, invokes magic, and pushes it to p = 1. lol.

If life is sprawled throughout the universe and has evolved independently, then what? Does that suggest natural abiogenesis is more likely or not? Lets say we find life in various stages on different planets, from biochemical components, to basic replicators and cells, to precambrian-like, to tetrapoda-like terrestrials. Then what? More likely or not?

So, in sum, chance and necessity. Not just chance.

So it's chance and necessity vs. teleology.



In the supernatural category, the 'natural means not privy to' would just be naturalist, no?
Technically yes, but I’m basing it on human knowledge, not actual knowledge, only after those natural means are discovered would they become natural. Since we are not aware of them at the moment, I’d say they are supernatural.


Beyond current knowledge, rather than nature I would think.



But, at the heart of the issue, yeah, we have natural means and the possibility for superatural means. I know which side my bets lie, not really needing to rely on personal biases/ideology, just a good dose of historical knowledge and the retreat of god-gap stuffing. Which has tended to be nothing more than a place-holder waiting for the light of science to pierce the fog of ignorance.

Very poetic Mel, and thanks for acknowledging the possibility.


Heh, I know many think atheists are some sort of absolute fundamentalist dogmatists, but I know very few that are 100% believers.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Replace the word chance with "unknown natural causes" and I'll agree with that statement.
that euphemism doesn’t work because chance is not reliant on something being unknown. Chance is a natural, not supernatural.



The odds of the right chemicals being in all the right places is extremely low (at any one period of time), and I'm not disagreeing with that, but there is another side to it - once the conditions are met (and they are almost guaranteed to in such a vast Universe), chance has no say in the inevitability of an equation playing itself out.

That is the side that you seem to be ignoring. It's not solely based on chance - and science is trying to understand what is not based on chance.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Well said.
Defining our existence solely on chance would be akin to me counting all of the atoms in my body and saying "the odds that I exist as such is 1 in a googolplex ( 10 ^ 10 ^ 100), which is next to impossible, therefor I must not exist".
This is why focusing just on the chance of any one thing without understanding the cause is ridiculous at best.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
This is why focusing just on the chance of any one thing without understanding the cause is ridiculous at best.


TBH, I was very surprised to see J. relying on such an argument. Even the IDers over at uncommondescent get the idea of metaphysical naturalism depending on chance and necessity.

They doubt it, of course. But at least they get the foundations.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I want to ask a question (because I want the OP to get more points) and stir this pot a little.....

We are talking about 'abiogenesis'.....but most talk seems focused on earth life.

In fact, it seems focused on land-based life that we're familiar with...plus, a few sea creatures that we interact with, nearer the surface.

Allow me to rant, for a bit, about extremophiles....these are lifeforms, ON EARTH, in deep ocean environments that do NOT need oxygen....in fact, they THRIVE in extremely hot water, under extreme pressures.....but, it is still life.

This mere fact would tend to imply that life is tenacious....and spontaneous.

The planet we call 'home'....the Earth, is not unique. It seems so, to us....but that is simple 'anthropormorphism'... (sorry for the spelling..)

It is the incredible height of hubris to assume, just because we can, that we, as Humans, are the 'end-all and be-all'.

Over 100 billion stars, in our Galaxy....over 100 billion other Galaxies.....all separated by time and distance......

EDIT.....forgot to ask the question....here it is....what does everyone think??? (about my earlier comments....)





[edit on 3/7/0909 by weedwhacker]


I agree with this but then that leads to more questions as well.

Why can't we find any Radio signals yet? Intelligent Life should be out there if we aren't the be all end all. Again, are we the only ones to have progressed this far? Almost sounds the same as we are the be all end all.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Oh, B.A.C.


That's an easy question.

I assume you are referring to the SETI experiment???

This is another example of Human hubris....the 'assumption' that, because WE use a certain frequency of the EM Spectrum, then all OTHERS will as well.

SETI is 'hoping' to find a response....but, again....WHY would a species, able to navigate frm Star to Star, wish to use light-speed communication technologies????

Doesn't make sense.....

EDIT....clarity....




[edit on 3/8/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Oh, B.A.C.


That's an easy question.

I assume you are referring to the SETI experiment???

This is another example of Human hubris....the 'assumption' that, because WE use a certain frequency of the EM Spectrum, then all OTHERS will as well.

SETI is 'hoping' to find a response....but, again....WHY would a species, able to navigate frm Star to Star, wish to use light-speed communication technologies????

Doesn't make sense.....

EDIT....clarity....




[edit on 3/8/0909 by weedwhacker]


I think it makes sense. We are discussing this right now (so in theory they would be too). If they are so intelligent and haven't found other life themselves, why wouldn't they use all the different types of frequencies or technologies enabling them to find life?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


B.A.C.....an example of circular logic.

BEST EXAMPLE EVER!!!!



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


B.A.C.....an example of circular logic.

BEST EXAMPLE EVER!!!!


I'd say it's almost a paradox.

Explain. I don't understand.

I think my question was reasonable.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Well it would be supernatural if that’s the case. Because it would mean the universe itself has intent because it was designed so. A naturalist universe does not claim to have no purpose or intent, it simply is.


A universe would not claim anything. I have never known the only one I know of to speak. Sorry I had to.

Not that I care much for the nice, neat *not to mention delusional* and mankind's organized dualistic polarizations *black and white* in a reality that has shown itself repeatedly to be grey *or better yet, a spectrum*. If the universe was set in motion by some form of higher power *computer programmer if some are to believed that think we may just be a simulation of some sort* it would be quite natural after all.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
So when sulphur burns it's just chance that SO2 is a product?

No, but by chance sulfur can burn and produce SO2 as a product. It’s a law of nature that sulphur creates CO2 as a byproduct when burned under most conditions.


When I take purified water to -10'C its just pure chance it turns solid?
PERHAPS not, if you believe in “free-will”/intent. If there just so happens to be purified water at -10’C and no one intended for it to be purified, no one brought it there, and it froze, then yes, it was by chance that the purified water solidified.


Could have become superheated?

You’re missing the point.


All chance, no necessity?

In a naturalist universe everything comes down to chance. Probability and percentages are all you are left with when you remove intent and purpose. Necessity? What necessity?


OK, so what does chance mean?
Chance means the probability something will happen. As an example, the longer an instance is possible, the more likely it will occur. That’s all that chance means.


Because each time a particular type of star goes nova it produces heavy elements.
by chance.


No necessity?

Again what do you mean necessity?


No order?

What do you mean order?


Just chance?

A naturalist universe is governed by the laws of nature and events within that universe happen by chance; unless nature is acted upon by people. Even then you can further digress and conclude that consciousness and all the thoughts and intents in our brains are governed by pure chance because they are nothing but the result of atoms rattling in our heads.

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to believe my beliefs are true…”
- Professor J. B. S. Haldane - (Possible Worlds, p. 209)

Hence, a true naturalist believes that everything happens by chance within the laws of nature; even their own thoughts and actions.



Could have turned into a penguin?
stars do turn into penguins Mel.


There might be an element of chance when exactly it will go nova, which stars fit the bill, that a universe survives long enough, but under particular conditions heavy elements are almost certain.
they are certain because they are operating within the laws of nature. But everything comes down to chance in a naturalist universe.


When someone says 'it's ridiculous that life could have developed by chance, the probability of x happening is 1 in 10^123' what do they mean?

Anyone foolish enough to give a number is redundantly, a fool.


They are attempting to make an argument that life evolving naturally is so vanishingly small, that a telic entity is required.

That argument contradicts itself. Even if life evolving had the smallest probability ever, that alone is proof that a “telic?” entity is not required. A snowballs “chance” in hell, is still a “chance”. Just so you know, that’s a different “chance” I’m referring to in that phrase.


If we calculate it to be .999, then it's still pure chance? No natural laws and regularities involved. No necessity?
not sure what your point is here.


You're taking it in opposition to intent and purpose, as I said, teleology. On one side, chance on t'other teleology. Which is not the case.

There really doesn’t seem to be an in-between for me.


To even assess probability we would need to have quite a bit of information about the events and its variables.
If you push a rock it moves, cause and affect. Human beings are not as simple but within a naturalistic universe human beings are reduced to complex organic machines capable of handling and computing I wider and more advanced array of stimuli.


There is a deterministic feature to nature, no?
Exactly my point, yes I would say there is a deterministic feature to nature but in a naturalistic universe everything is so. Cause and effect.


[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Is it just pure chance that I will die?

No, you will.


It might be chance when I die or how I die. But it's just chance? No feature of my biology? When I was born, it was just chance I was human? Could have also been a penguin?
all of these specific circumstances would be by chance.


Evolution is not just chance, for instance.

I never said that evolution was chance. I said that evolution happens by chance.


The randomness comes from mutations and external events, both of which are uncorrelated to the needs of the organism. But it's not chance that those most suited to the environment are selected. Chance and necessity.
All of this would happen by chance, and I’m still not sure what you mean by necessity.


So the effort to play the chance card is just a way to make the natural argument appear ridiculous and take out the necessity and ordered character of nature.

No, you do not comprehend what I’m trying to convey. There’s nothing ridiculous about something happening by chance. In a naturalist universe it is the only means by which things occur.


It just feeds the rather inane and pathetic probability arguments I see posted around. perhaps you don’t understand probability.
Chance means that the more time something natural has to occur, the more likely it will. If the nature of the universe is accepted as cyclical, given enough time nearly anything can happen. Chance is the only drive of the universe within naturalism. If you’re saying it didn’t happen by chance, then you really don’t believe in abiogenesis.


The driver is natural forces. Stars form across the universe, no telic intent required. Whence chance? p = 1 for stars to form in this universe? And I don't really depend on chance for it. p = 1 for life to develop somewhere in this universe? At least the earth.

We only have one trial. How can we apply frequentist probability? We don't have a universe to keep running multiple trials to understand the bounds. We don't have an earth in the lab to calculate the frequency of events, especially those we have little understanding of, lol. As I said, perhaps it's inevitable for life to evolve on a planet like the earth.

I understand what you’re saying and it is valid, but I’m not seeing the relevance.


So it would be inevitable with time? Say that it takes a universe around 1 billion years to cycle enough stars to produce carbon. If the universe survives 500,000,000 years, p = 0. If it survives 1 billion, lets say p = .95, survives 2 billion, p = 0.9999999999999999999.

Is chance that important at 2 billion? Has necessity and order no influence?
I’m not sure what you mean by necessity and influence, I’ll respond to your questions concerning those words when you define your terms. I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. But yes, it seems almost everything possible within nature would be inevitable given enough time.


Lets say it takes me around 20 hours to build a model car. But I only have 10. It's an act full of intent, but it would likely be low p for me to finish in 10hrs. Probably something like p =.95 to finish in 20hrs, and p = .9999999999 to finish in 40hrs.

Just pure chance? No intent involved?

Everything would come down to chance. Intent? What intent? Your actions and motives are merely complex responses to stimuli at this point.


So how can we apply probability arguments? It could be p = .001 or p =.9999999. It's actually p = 1, though. As life did form. All you attempt to do is push the probability argument to p = 1 by invoking supernatural powers.

I’ve tried to do what? I’ve not claimed anything supernatural has occurred is occurring or will occur. I’m merely trying to illustrate what it means to be a naturalist.


So, for example, some creationists makes a crap attempt at producing a probability argument based on pure chance (which is essentially your claim), completely ignoring all the simultaneous trials and necessity in nature, with no real ability to understand the variables underpinning the calculation of the event, then produces 1 in 10^134 or something. They look at a protein and pull a number from their anus. Then says no way for nature, invokes magic, and pushes it to p = 1. lol.

You are really off base Mel and you’re assuming things I have not said nor thought.


If life is sprawled throughout the universe and has evolved independently, then what? Does that suggest natural abiogenesis is more likely or not? Lets say we find life in various stages on different planets, from biochemical components, to basic replicators and cells, to precambrian-like, to tetrapoda-like terrestrials. Then what? More likely or not?
you’re not being specific enough for me to give a reasonable answer.


So, in sum, chance and necessity. Not just chance.

When you define necessity I might be inclined to agree with you. But until you do, I maintain that EVERYTHING comes down to chance.


So it's chance and necessity vs. teleology.

Maybe, but define necessity.


Beyond current knowledge, rather than nature I would think.

What?


Heh, I know many think atheists are some sort of absolute fundamentalist dogmatists, but I know very few that are 100% believers.

I don’t think anyone is a 100% believer in anything Mel, I don’t believe it's human nature to be such a way. But most will not acknowledge possibilities because they’re trying to convince themselves of a particular thing being true.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


But most will not acknowledge possibilities because they’re trying to convince themselves of a particular thing being true.


Isn't bias grand? Most dedicate themselves to feeding theirs.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
The odds of the right chemicals being in all the right places is extremely low (at any one period of time), and I'm not disagreeing with that, but there is another side to it - once the conditions are met (and they are almost guaranteed to in such a vast Universe), chance has no say in the inevitability of an equation playing itself out.

That is the side that you seem to be ignoring. It's not solely based on chance - and science is trying to understand what is not based on chance.

It doesn’t matter how low the chances are, given enough time it would happen. I’m not claiming these things for this universe; but a naturalist universe is based solely on chance and the laws of nature.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by JPhish
 


Well it would be supernatural if that’s the case. Because it would mean the universe itself has intent because it was designed so. A naturalist universe does not claim to have no purpose or intent, it simply is.


A universe would not claim anything. I have never known the only one I know of to speak. Sorry I had to.

Not that I care much for the nice, neat *not to mention delusional* and mankind's organized dualistic polarizations *black and white* in a reality that has shown itself repeatedly to be grey *or better yet, a spectrum*. If the universe was set in motion by some form of higher power *computer programmer if some are to believed that think we may just be a simulation of some sort* it would be quite natural after all.


it was a typo, thanks a lot.

"A naturalist universe does not have purpose or intent, it simply is."

Fixed for you, so you can stop inanely laughing . . .

If the universe was set into motion by a higher power it is supernatural. If the universe is the result of a computer program it would be supernatural. You can call it whatever you like, but if it exists outside of nature. It is supernatural.


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by JPhish
 


But most will not acknowledge possibilities because they’re trying to convince themselves of a particular thing being true.


Isn't bias grand? Most dedicate themselves to feeding theirs.


no, i don't believe bias is grand, in fact i hate it. I’m not sure who you are attempting to glibly insinuate something to, but i suggest you say it, because I doubt your disingenuousness has gone unnoticed.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


no, i don't believe bias is grand, in fact i hate it. I’m not sure who you are attempting to glibly insinuate something to, but i suggest you say it, because I doubt your disingenuousness has gone unnoticed.


Firstly, calm down the hostility is not needed. Secondly I would like to point out there is such a thing as commenting on something without directing it at any particular person. There are people in existance that seek only to feed their bias is this or is this not true? Once again not even trying to infer anyone in particular. Thirdly, it was a comment made in humor and I assumed that you would notice that, well, you know what they say about ass/u/me.


it was a typo, thanks a lot.

"A naturalist universe does not have purpose or intent, it simply is."

Fixed for you, so you can stop inanely laughing . . .


Oh, I was not laughing at you. Just laughing. I find that humor makes life easier to deal with and the comment as it was warrented a humorous remark though I was pretty sure it was a typo, I do them all the time.


If the universe was set into motion by a higher power it is supernatural. If the universe is the result of a computer program it would be supernatural. You can call it whatever you like, but if it exists outside of nature. It is supernatural.


Ah, seems to me if such a being exists then it would be within the confines of nature as it does exist *not saying it does, just saying if it did*. Terming it supernatural sounds little more than semantics for the purpose of discreditation, a common tactic in the eternal war of beliefs I have noticed.






[edit on 8-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

There is a deterministic feature to nature, no?
Exactly my point, yes I would say there is a deterministic feature to nature but in a naturalistic universe everything is so. Cause and effect.


I can't be bothered with the semantic dancing around. Had enough of those games for a while.

Chance and necessity. Not just chance.

I explained it fairly well for 3am or whatever. For example, evolution. Chance comes in the form of randomness inherent to mutations et al, the necessity is in the form of selection et al. Which are the laws/deterministic feature of nature.

It's a fairly simple concept that is understood by most involved in these discussions. Perhaps read a Dembski book, as I'm actually using well-established terminology in this area:

IDer, Dr Dr Will Dembski, the Einstein of information theory (lol)...


In ordinary life, explanations that invoke chance, necessity, or design cover every eventuality. Nevertheless, in the natural sciences one of these modes of explanation is considered superfluous—namely, design. From the perspective of the natural sciences, design, as the action of an intelligent agent, is not a fundamental creative force in nature. Rather, blind natural causes, characterized by chance and necessity and ruled by unbroken laws, are thought sufficient to do all nature’s creating. Darwin’s theory is a case in point.

...

I show that undirected natural processes like the Darwinian mechanism are incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in biological organisms. It follows that chance and necessity are insufficient for the natural sciences and that the natural sciences need to leave room for design.

www.naturalhistorymag.com...

Evolutionary Biologist, Dr Francisco Ayala...


Chance and Necessity
Natural selection accounts for the "design" of organisms, because adaptive variations tend to increase the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers at the expense of maladaptive, or less adaptive, variations. The arguments of Aquinas or Paley against the incredible improbability of chance accounts of the origin of organisms are well taken as far as they go. But neither these scholars, nor any other authors before Darwin, were able to discern that there is a natural process (namely, natural selection) that is not random but rather is oriented and able to generate order or "create." The traits that organisms acquire in their evolutionary histories are not fortuitous but determined by their functional utility to the organisms.

Chance is, nevertheless, an integral part of the evolutionary process.

...

The theory of evolution manifests chance and necessity jointly intricated in the stuff of life; randomness and determinism interlocked in a natural process that has spurted the most complex, diverse, and beautiful entities in the universe: the organisms that populate the earth, including humans who think and love, endowed with free will and creative powers, and able to analyze the process of evolution itself that brought them into existence. This is Darwin's fundamental discovery...

www.counterbalance.net...

So we have chance, necessity, and design possibilities. Design is your teleology. Chance is the randomness inherent to much of nature. Necessity is the laws, regularities and deterministic features of nature.

According to metaphysical naturalism - chance and necessity.

According to intelligent design creationism, creationism etc - chance, necessity, and design.

So when you say just chance, you are leaving out necessity by design


So to correctly represent the argument from metaphysical naturalism, it is chance and necessity. And, of course, no teleology. It is undirected by the miraculous pantheon. It does serve a purpose, though, to label evolution and wider naturalism as being based on just chance. The misrepresentation sounds rather silly and ridiculous doesn't it? Who could readily accept the rather deterministic and ordered nature we see around us as just happening by chance alone.

Cheers.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join