Jump to content


Photo

Ige37 Says Everything Has A Natural Explanation


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#21 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 16 June 2010 - 04:29 AM

I re-posted this from: http://www.evolution...481
Most of the atheists I know, and those I've become acquainted with in the internet, and most of the atheists post that I read, would suggest otherwise. But, I am not suggesting all, nor am I suggesting I've read all atheistic opinion on the matter.

View Post


I guess it may be because I'm from a place where people seem largely tolerant.

This is what is known as circular reasoning. You have a tautology on your hands my friend.

View Post


I can see why it is circular reasoning. However, to believe that there is a natural explanation for the origins of the universe, we don't need an explanation without flaws because any explanation of the origins of the universe is inherently flawed. As I said in a post earlier, we cannot explain everything with anything.


Not only is that line of thought illogical, but it not rational or scientific either. But, if you could posit some evidence (other than your imaginings), we could discuss it at the thread Adam suggested.

View Post


Then may I suggest reading what's been said so far?

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 June 2010 - 04:51 AM

I guess it may be because I'm from a place where people seem largely tolerant.

View Post

Is your place more tolerant than mine? Is this what you’re suggesting? That, to me, sounds like an intolerant statement.


I can see why it is circular reasoning.

View Post

Of course, because it is blatantly obvious.

However, to believe that there is a natural explanation for the origins of the universe, we don't need an explanation without flaws because any explanation of the origins of the universe is inherently flawed. 

View Post

Actually, that it the main point. You have to have “faith” either way. Plus, there is absolutely no logical, rational, or scientific evidence or reasonable explanation for a “naturalistic” origin for the universe.


As I said in a post earlier, we cannot explain everything with anything.

View Post

And no one suggested we could.

Then may I suggest reading what's been said so far?

View Post

I have, and you haven’t yet posited any evidence (other than your imaginings).

You said:

My point: the Big Bang is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe.  It may not be complete or entirely convincing, but it is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe.

View Post


But, the big bang isn’t an “explanation for the origin of the universe”, its an explanation of a result. An explanation to what caused the big bang would be closer to what you should be trying, if you’re to attempt a “naturalistic” causation explanation.


So anyway, if you would provide said "naturalistic" evidences, we could discuss it further.

#23 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 16 June 2010 - 06:01 AM

Is your place more tolerant than mine? Is this what you’re suggesting? That, to me, sounds like an intolerant statement.

View Post


Of course! That's exactly what I meant! :sarcasm:

Actually, that it the main point. You have to have “faith” either way. Plus, there is absolutely no logical, rational, or scientific evidence or reasonable explanation for a “naturalistic” origin for the universe.

View Post


Actually, the faith statement you have made is something I already said early on in the discussion. The fact that you can assert that there is no logical, rational, or scientific evidence for a naturalistic origin to the universe is like saying that there is no logical, rational, or scientific evidence for a creator. It's philosophical and my contention is that drawing the line at the philosophical is pointless.

Another interesting thought: 100 years ago could someone claim to be a naturalist? By the discussion here, one would argue that nobody, ever, could ever claim to be a naturalist. The Big Bang didn't even exist back then.

So, nobody can believe in anything, because technically we know nothing...if my mistake in my original post was that I left out the philosophical, you got me.

I have, and you haven’t yet posited any evidence (other than your imaginings).
You said:
But, the big bang isn’t an “explanation for the origin of the universe”, its an explanation of a result. An explanation to what caused the big bang would be closer to what you should be trying, if you’re to attempt a “naturalistic” causation explanation.
So anyway, if you would provide said "naturalistic" evidences, we could discuss it further.

View Post


Well then Ron, let's see what's happened so far:

1. I gave the Big Bang was given as evidence for the origin of the universe.
2. Adam rightly pointed out that such an explanation cannot be an explanation because it invokes things that can't exist outside of natural order.
3. I suggested that asking for a natural explanation for things outside of natural order was equivalent to asking the question of what created the creator. Utterly pointless, and it does not take away from the explanatory power of the mechanism (naturalism, creationism)

If you don't consider the Big Bang evidence of the origin of the universe because the evidence isn't good enough, that's your prerogative. It IS an explanation, no matter how flawed. It ISN'T required to be PERFECT because NO explanation for the origin of the universe IS perfect. No explanation for the universe is falsifiable (again, something I admitted earlier), but once again, if the contention is that, in my original post is that I left out the philosophical...my bad. I guess I'll have to put a disclaimer beneath my statements to make things more clear.

One thing that did concern me a little...

An explanation to what caused the big bang would be closer to what you should be trying, if you’re to attempt a “naturalistic” causation explanation.

View Post


Did you actually read what we've been discussing? I've gone over a few times already of why it's impossible to naturally explain things outside of natural law. If you need clarification, let me try leveling the playing field again, so I ask again:

Who/what created the creator? Anything? More importantly, does it truly matter? And, even more importantly, if you cannot answer that question, does it take anything away from the idea that special creation can explain everything you see today?

#24 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 16 June 2010 - 06:27 AM

If anything I have said above is hazy, then allow me to try clarify:

If the argument against naturalism is that it is not an adequate explanation for how the universe came to be, I can argue, ad nauseum that any explanation for the formation of the universe is not an adequate explanation.

I can also acknowledge that the universe could have been created 6000 years ago by an omnipotent creator.
I can also acknowledge that the universe could have been created 20,000 years ago by an omnipotent creator.
I can also acknowledge that 400 years ago, then earth could have been created to look exactly as it is by an outside intelligence.
I can also acknowledge that some sort of intelligent life may exist inside or outside of our universe.
I can also acknowledge that the earth was created 3 minutes ago by an incredibly complex entity outside our observatory powers.
I can also acknowledge that reincarnation is a possibility.
I can also acknowledge that the sky could not be blue.
I can also acknowledge that the what we see as red could actually be green.

Philosophy gives strange powers to human beings, and arguments on philosophical grounds allows for fantastic discussion. They have the unique ability to dismiss everything OR to explain everything.

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:54 PM

Philosophy gives strange powers to human beings, and arguments on philosophical grounds allows for fantastic discussion.  They have the unique ability to dismiss everything OR to explain everything.

View Post

And yet the truth is still the truth whether you believe it or not.

Agnosticism is a self-defeating proposition. It's oxymoronic.

Here is another orphan child of the naturalistic sciences that fails a natural explanation. The origin of living organisms. For all the title says, Darwin dun come up short.

#26 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 16 June 2010 - 08:24 PM

And yet the truth is still the truth whether you believe it or not.

Agnosticism is a self-defeating proposition. It's oxymoronic.

Here is another orphan child of the naturalistic sciences that fails a natural explanation. The origin of living organisms. For all the title says, Darwin dun come up short.

View Post


The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on this planet is abiogenesis. I could discuss the specifics here if ya like, but I assume that doing such would be time wasted. Just like the Big Bang, it's unfalsifiable, but it is an explanation.

As far as truth and agnosticism is concerned, I'm quite content with the possibility that I may never figure out what I consider to be truth before I die. It's not a necessity for me.

Edit: I should clarify, just in case: Two naturalistic explanations for the origin of living organisms exist (that I can think of off the top of my head).

1) Primordial ooze
2) Deep sea thermal vents

If you would like detail on these, I can provide it. Though I'm not sure it would add to the discussion.

#27 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 17 June 2010 - 01:40 AM

The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on this planet is abiogenesis.

View Post

...Which has a mountain of evidence against it and only speculation for it. The law of biogenesis is an example of good science, you know that pesky demonstrable bit that evolutionists love to assert but ignore in practice. :lol:


Here is another good one: What's the natural explanation for consciousness? How does science account for the ability of creatures, which are self-aware, to make opposing choices in identical circumstances?

What the heck is "choice" anyway in a world which is fundamentally naturalistic (your worldview) versus a world which is fundamentally spiritual (my worldview)?

...I think William Provine was intellectually honest enough to carry his own reasoning to its logical conclusion:

0rugGS4B5Gs

Either science is only a tool in a created world to understand certain attributes of an existence that is primarily spiritual and personal, or the world is a cause and effect result of time and chance with an illusion of the personal and spiritual.

Don't worry, there are plenty of people out there willing to accept your answer of irrelevance for everything that makes naturalism look foolish. :lol:

The idea of an atheist (who can come to the conclusion; that life is essentially a short flukish existence in a meaningless universe with a convenient byproduct of consciousness which allows pleasure) finding time well spent trying to argue for the 'truth' of their 'convictions' rather than just spending all their time filling the bottomless pit of their lust, is quite instructive, to this particular Christian anyway.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 June 2010 - 03:38 AM

The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on this planet is abiogenesis. 

View Post

Which is a faith based proposition at best. And still doesn’t nail a “naturalistic” beginning to all of this.

I could discuss the specifics here if ya like, but I assume that doing such would be time wasted.  Just like the Big Bang, it's unfalsifiable, but it is an explanation.

View Post

It’s only time wasted if you are unwilling to take it further. The big bang model doesn’t give a “naturalistic” explanation to origins. If it were true, it would only be a part of the equation. The bigger question is; What started the big bang?

As far as truth and agnosticism is concerned, I'm quite content with the possibility that I may never figure out what I consider to be truth before I die.  It's not a necessity for me.

View Post

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Fire is hot, water is wet, 2+2=4 (etcetera…), those are absolute truths. Total agnosticism is self refuting at best, and therefore cannot lead to truth. Therefore, if you cannot (or refuse to) understand the absoluteness of some truths, you are only hindering yourself.

Edit: I should clarify, just in case:  Two naturalistic explanations for the origin of living organisms exist (that I can think of off the top of my head).

1) Primordial ooze
2) Deep sea thermal vents

View Post

1) Primordial ooze has no basis in reality
2) Deep sea thermal vents do

If you would like detail on these, I can provide it. 

View Post

1) Primordial ooze, you can’t
2) Deep sea thermal vents, you can


Though I'm not sure it would add to the discussion.

View Post


Quite a bit, if you could. But the "Primordial ooze" is (so far) a fantasy conjured up and believed in by evolu-theists.

#29 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 04:58 AM

The big bang model doesn’t give a “naturalistic” explanation to origins. If it were true, it would only be a part of the equation. The bigger question is; What started the big bang?


All the possible answers to that question that are hypothesised all presuppose the Big Bang itself, so if you don't accept the Big Bang then discussing things using that as a starting point doesn't really work.

Unfortunately, in this case, some understanding of the scientific principles is involved. It isn't just a case here of saying "for the sake of argument I will say I accept the Big Bang".

Relativity theory and particle physics are required, though not at a mathematical level (which I'm very glad about).

#30 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 04:59 AM

The idea of an atheist (who can come to the conclusion; that life is essentially a short flukish existence in a meaningless universe with a convenient byproduct of consciousness which allows pleasure) finding time well spent trying to argue for the 'truth' of their 'convictions' rather than just spending all their time filling the bottomless pit of their lust, is quite instructive, to this particular Christian anyway.


Is that an ad hominem?

#31 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 17 June 2010 - 05:44 AM

...Which has a mountain of evidence against it and only speculation for it. The law of biogenesis is an example of good science, you know that pesky demonstrable bit that evolutionists love to assert but ignore in practice. ;)

View Post


Saying that it's speculation or imperfect is, once again, not the issue. It's naturalistic, and it's an explanation. You don't have to like it or agree with it to be an explanation. I did go on to say in this thread that it's just as unfalsifiable as any theory regarding origins. ANY theory.

Here is another good one: What's the natural explanation for consciousness? How does science account for the ability of creatures, which are self-aware, to make opposing choices in identical circumstances?

View Post


Ah, something naturalists call the explanatory gap. They are still doing much research trying to find the neural correlates or consciousness, that is, the minimal set of physiological events required to perceive something. The majority of the work being done in this field is a bit over my head, but scientists have really just scratched the surface of neural manipulation along with brain-imaging techniques.

I'll chalk that one up to you though, as clearly we don't have the technology necessary to find the NCC. If I may though, quote Joseph Levine and what he says regarding this explanatory gap:

"In the end, we are right back where we started. The explanatory gap argument doesn't demonstrate a gap in nature, but a gap in our understanding of nature. Of course a plausible explanation for there being a gap in our understanding of nature is that there is a genuine gap in nature. But so long as we have countervailing reasons for doubting the latter, we have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the former."

http://cognet.mit.ed...ON3/Levine.html

What the heck is "choice" anyway in a world which is fundamentally naturalistic (your worldview) versus a world which is fundamentally spiritual (my worldview)?

View Post


I'm only a naturalist insomuch that I believe it's a possibility. I'm an agnostic. But I will go along with this for the sake of discussion.

I suppose that, at first, one would think that if your choices only depended on survival and passing on genetic material that all human choices would be selfish (in a purely naturalistic environment). One concept in the natural world that could explain why this isn't the case in humans could be a sense of altruism in humans. However, if this is the case, our altruistic behavior is severely inflated compared to what's seen in the animal kingdom.

...I think William Provine was intellectually honest enough to carry his own reasoning to its logical conclusion:

0rugGS4B5Gs

View Post


I think he sums it a naturalist point of view quite nicely.

Either science is only a tool in a created world to understand certain attributes of an existence that is primarily spiritual and personal, or the world is a cause and effect result of time and chance with an illusion of the personal and spiritual.

View Post


Agreed.

Don't worry, there are plenty of people out there willing to accept your answer of irrelevance for everything that makes naturalism look foolish.  :lol:

View Post


That's an unfair statement. I only called something you discussed irrelevant when you discussed things that exist outside of natural law. It's an unfair line of questioning. I demonstrated this by asking you the following question, which you've ignored so far (and rightly so, because it's also unfair):

Who/what created the creator?

And, I followed it with this line of questioning, effectively dismissing both your line of questioning and mine as being impossible to answer and, truly, not important.

Anything? More importantly, does it truly matter? And, even more importantly, if you cannot answer that question, does it take anything away from the idea that special creation can explain everything you see today?


The idea of an atheist (who can come to the conclusion; that life is essentially a short flukish existence in a meaningless universe with a convenient byproduct of consciousness which allows pleasure) finding time well spent trying to argue for the 'truth' of their 'convictions' rather than just spending all their time filling the bottomless pit of their lust, is quite instructive, to this particular Christian anyway.

View Post


I've heard actually from many theists that people switch to agnosticism/atheism to conveniently avoid having morals. I would also say that many of the people that subscribe to my worldview are of questionable character. I would also say that many theists are of questionable character. The more people I meet, the more I realize that worldview has nothing to do with the quality of a human being.

#32 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 17 June 2010 - 05:53 AM

Is that an ad hominem?

View Post


Nah, I think his implication is that if people do truly subscribe to a naturalistic point of view (that is, life is short, there is no afterlife/consequences to what we do), why aren't they partying like it's 1999 all the time? Truly, there would be justification to do this and, as he said, the fact that someone spends their time searching for truth instead of SPRING-BREAKING!!! it all the time was "instructive".

I don't think he meant that in a derogatory way.

#33 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 June 2010 - 05:54 AM

Is that an ad hominem?

View Post


No, not necessarily. You didn't provide enough information (i.e. what the person was replying to).An example of an ad hominem abusive (within context) would be: The idea of an atheist is stupid! Or theists are ignorant! There are different forms of the ad hominem abusive, but it is in most cases used as a tool to keep from haveing to back up an assertion by deflecting (or side-stepping) the issue by the old bait and switch routine.

In the example you sited, the individual made a statement, and backed it up with rationale (albeit brief). In which case, you can dialogue with them about it.

#34 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 17 June 2010 - 06:16 AM

Which is a faith based proposition at best. And still doesn’t nail a “naturalistic” beginning to all of this.

View Post


http://www.answers.c...pic/abiogenesis

Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

That's a naturalistic explanation. I'll assume though that the reason that tried to say that it's not was because you didn't get to the specific theories of abiogenesis I pointed out later.

It’s only time wasted if you are unwilling to take it further. The big bang model doesn’t give a “naturalistic” explanation to origins. If it were true, it would only be a part of the equation. The bigger question is; What started the big bang?

View Post


And once again, that is an unfair line of questioning. As I said before, if you follow the line of questioning regarding creationism I posted earlier, you'll see why.

Who created the creator? Anything? More importantly, does it truly matter? And, even more importantly, if you cannot answer the initial question, does it take anything away from the idea that special creation can explain everything you see today?

The only way to take this further is to approach it philosophically and if you want, I'm happy to do so. I guess we could also just do that...guess, as well, and I'd be happy to do that if ya like.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Fire is hot, water is wet, 2+2=4 (etcetera…), those are absolute truths. Total agnosticism is self refuting at best, and therefore cannot lead to truth. Therefore, if you cannot (or refuse to) understand the absoluteness of some truths, you are only hindering yourself.

View Post


Actually, I get this a lot from creationists and atheists when I tell them I'm an agnostic. I have a way of getting around what you call a "self-refutation" of agnosticism (and rightly so).

I'll put you in my shoes for a moment. If one does not subscribe to one particular religion, where would you look for answers? Cherry-picking wouldn't really make you an agnostic, it would make you more of a hypocrite than anything. So, when I walked out of church for the last time, I decided that I would look for prevalent "truths" that exist across religion. I'm not trying to search for truth in a single religion, I'm looking for truth in common religious themes throughout the world.

Quite a bit, if you could. But the "Primordial ooze" is (so far) a fantasy conjured up and believed in by evolu-theists.

View Post


But Ron, this is not the issue. The initial proposition I made is that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. The theory that life came from primordial ooze is both natural and an explanation. It is not simply disqualified because you or I may think it's silly. There are definitely scientists out there who can believe it.

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 June 2010 - 06:17 AM

All the possible answers to that question that are hypothesised all presuppose the Big Bang itself, so if you don't accept the Big Bang then discussing things using that as a starting point doesn't really work.

View Post

And that is the misconception; the big bang is not a starting point. It cannot be. It is the resultant of another action; it had a start, therefore, it had a starter (i.e. a causal agent). Logic, reasoning and the scientific method demand this.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe very much in what you vaguely refer to as the “big bang”. I just don’t call it the big bang.

Unfortunately, in this case, some understanding of the scientific principles is involved.  It isn't just a case here of saying "for the sake of argument I will say I accept the Big Bang".

View Post


You always have to have some understanding of the scientific principles is involved. Regardless of whether or not you accept the beginning of the universe.

Relativity theory and particle physics are required, though not at a mathematical level (which I'm very glad about).

View Post


Actually, they are not required, but they come in handy. We know the universe had a beginning from a purely static viewpoint. Why, because everything we’ve ever observed is not fixed. Nothing is static! Every materialistic thing we have empirically tested runs along a linear framework.

#36 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 06:35 AM

And that is the misconception; the big bang is not a starting point. It cannot be. It is the resultant of another action; it had a start, therefore, it had a starter (i.e. a causal agent). Logic, reasoning and the scientific method demand this.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe very much in what you vaguely refer to as the “big bang”. I just don’t call it the big bang.


You misunderstand me, I meant a starting point to the discussion not a starting point to the universe.

My apologies if that was not clear.

Actually, they are not required, but they come in handy. We know the universe had a beginning from a purely static viewpoint. Why, because everything we’ve ever observed is not fixed. Nothing is static! Every materialistic thing we have empirically tested runs along a linear framework.


I would disagree about the fact that they are not required.

To understand the Big Bang scientific theory of the Big Bang then you have to understand some of both.

Without understanding E=MC^2 it is impossible to follow what occurred.

I am not talking about understanding that the universe had a beginning in general. You could argue that point without understanding relativity and particle physics, but for the Big Bang itself, some background knowledge is necessary.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 June 2010 - 06:46 AM

http://www.answers.c...pic/abiogenesis

Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

View Post

Again, this is a faith based proposition, and nothing more. The very first sentence says: “The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.”

It then goes on to say:
“IN BRIEF: n. - A believer in the origination of living organisms from lifeless matter”

Yes, a “believer”, or faith based.

That's a naturalistic explanation.  I'll assume though that the reason that tried to say that it's not was because you didn't get to the specific theories of abiogenesis I pointed out later.

View Post


The model of abiogenesis is not an explanation at all, but more of an unfounded opinion that requires large amounts of faith to believe in. But, if you wish to go along those lines of reasoning, that’s fine. In fact, I harbor no ill will at your wanting to believe in this. In fact, it’s your rightto do so. But, if you wish to rationalize it in order to legitimize it, I’ll be more than happy to discuss the merits and shortcomings.

And once again, that is an unfair line of questioning.  As I said before, if you follow the line of questioning regarding creationism I posted earlier, you'll see why.

Who created the creator?  Anything? More importantly, does it truly matter? And, even more importantly, if you cannot answer the initial question, does it take anything away from the idea that special creation can explain everything you see today?

View Post


Its not unfair at all, it simply points out the faith commitments you willingly adhere to. It simply show that you wish to argue along the lines of an infinite regress (which is a logical fallacy). And, it’s not that the initial question cannot be answered, but more that the flawed syllogism you have to use in order to refute it in the first place doesn’t work.



The only way to take this further is to approach it philosophically and if you want, I'm happy to do so.

View Post

Actually, that is incorrect as well. It can be taken further via Logic, Philosophy and Science. And I’d be happy to do so as well.

Actually, I get this a lot from creationists and atheists when I tell them I'm an agnostic.  I have a way of getting around what you call a "self-refutation" of agnosticism (and rightly so).

View Post

It’s your show, you can proceed when you want to.


I'll put you in my shoes for a moment.  If one does not subscribe to one particular religion, where would you look for answers?  Cherry-picking wouldn't really make you an agnostic, it would make you more of a hypocrite than anything.  So, when I walked out of church for the last time, I decided that I would look for prevalent "truths" that exist across religion.  I'm not trying to search for truth in a single religion, I'm looking for truth in common religious themes throughout the world.

View Post


You simply walked out of one church into another. You faith commitments are just as strong, they are simply directed differently. When I was an atheist, I life my faith commitments as well.

But Ron, this is not the issue.  The initial proposition I made is that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything.  The theory that life came from primordial ooze is both natural and an explanation.  It is not simply disqualified because you or I may think it's silly.  There are definitely scientists out there who can believe it.

View Post

It is very much the issue, and is tied tightly into the world view and faith commitments we all make every day. The model that “life came from primordial ooze” is neither natural, nor is it an explanation. It has no basis in reality, but in faith alone. There is absolutely no evidence for the model, therefore no support for the assertion. And I don’t disqualify it because I think its silly, I think it’s silly because it has no factual basis, but is promulgated as fact.

And yes, there are “definitely scientists out there who can believe it”, but they do so on faith alone.

#38 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 17 June 2010 - 07:23 AM

Again, this is a faith based proposition, and nothing more. The very first sentence says: “The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.”

It then goes on to say:
“IN BRIEF: n. - A believer in the origination of living organisms from lifeless matter”

Yes, a “believer”, or faith based.

View Post


I have already admitted, on numerous occasions, that any theory regarding origins requires faith. They are all unfalsifiable. If what you're trying to point out is that being a naturalist in regards to origins requires faith, then the same thing can be said for any worldview.

The model of abiogenesis is not an explanation at all, but more of an unfounded opinion that requires large amounts of faith to believe in. But, if you wish to go along those lines of reasoning, that’s fine. In fact, I harbor no ill will at your wanting to believe in this. In fact, it’s your rightto do so. But, if you wish to rationalize it in order to legitimize it, I’ll be more than happy to discuss the merits and shortcomings.


I don't "want to believe" in abiogenesis. I'm merely giving you the naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I don't regard abiogenesis as legitimate because it is unfalsifiable so it requires some faith. I don't regard ANY explanation for the origin of life on this planet as "the truth" because they are ALL unfalsifiable and therefore require faith.

Its not unfair at all, it simply points out the faith commitments you willingly adhere to. It simply show that you wish to argue along the lines of an infinite regress (which is a logical fallacy). And, it’s not that the initial question cannot be answered, but more that the flawed syllogism you have to use in order to refute it in the first place doesn’t work. 


If that's what you think, then answer this for me:

If your argument is that by not being able to answer the question "what came before the big bang?" qualifies all discussion afterwords as an infinite regress, how is that not the exact same situation if I asked "what created the creator?"

Actually, that is incorrect as well. It can be taken further via Logic, Philosophy and Science.  And I’d be happy to do so as well.


I should have made it more clear when I answered that question. The physics required to demonstrate that the big bang is true were only briefly gone over by me in a geology class regarding the movements within the cosmos. My own education regarding quantum physics is limited as well, having only taken up to physics 212 (unfortunately, we all can't be physicists). I know that the gap between 0 to 10^-43 seconds of the big bang is the only point that cannot be explained by quantum physics. But that's just it...trying to discuss things that existed before any laws of nature existed is impossible to discuss. There is no time, space, or physics...there's just conjecture. Trying to discuss things scientifically before the big bang is impossible without the laws of science present. The best we can do is guess.

Incidently, I noticed you put Logic as one of the ways you can further the discussion on origins before the big bang. I'm curious.

You simply walked out of one church into another. You faith commitments are just as strong, they are simply directed differently. When I was an atheist, I life my faith commitments as well.


True enough, but I don't adhere to any particular religious beliefs. I do believe, for example, that the search for truth does not lie in a single religion. I don't think that disqualifies me as an agnostic, but perhaps it does.

It is very much the issue, and is tied tightly into the world view and faith commitments we all make every day. The model that “life came from primordial ooze” is neither natural, nor is it an explanation.  It has no basis in reality, but in faith alone. There is absolutely no evidence for the model, therefore no support for the assertion. And I don’t disqualify it because I think its silly, I think it’s silly because it has no factual basis, but is promulgated as fact.

And yes, there are “definitely scientists out there who can believe it”, but they do so on faith alone.


As I said above, any belief in anything regarding origins requires some faith all theories concerning origins are unfalsifiable. I guess the possible distinction I'm making here is that, from a naturalist perspective, it's ok to think that life came from nothing simply because there is no factual basis for ANY explanation regarding origins.

This definitely gives me something to think about at work today :lol:

#39 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 June 2010 - 03:57 PM

I have already admitted, on numerous occasions, that any theory regarding origins requires faith.  They are all unfalsifiable.  If what you're trying to point out is that being a naturalist in regards to origins requires faith, then the same thing can be said for any worldview.

View Post


Exactly, and that is one of the many truths that escape self professed materialists, atheists, skeptics and most agnostics. It’s the faith we all rely on to hold our worldviews.

I don't "want to believe" in abiogenesis. 

View Post

Good, because it has way too many holes in it to sustain scrutiny. But, anyway, you do believe in something, its just a matter of your confessing/admitting/saying whatever it is.

I'm merely giving you the naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. 

View Post

Abiogenesis isn’t an explanation, nor is it naturalistic. It is nothing more than an idea with no foundation.

I don't regard abiogenesis as legitimate because it is unfalsifiable so it requires some faith. 

View Post

It doesn’t require “some” faith, it requires total faith (see foundationless). And all ideas are unfalsifiable, until they’re proven or disproved.

I don't regard ANY explanation for the origin of life on this planet as "the truth" because they are ALL unfalsifiable and therefore require faith. 

View Post


As does any positive or negative opinion on origins. They all require faith.


If that's what you think, then answer this for me:

If your argument is that by not being able to answer the question "what came before the big bang?" qualifies all discussion afterwords as an infinite regress, how is that not the exact same situation if I asked "what created the creator?"

View Post


Because your “infinite regress” argument is illogical and has no merit; In order to make it work, you need to have a faulty premise in your logic. You rely on the statement “If everything must have a cause, than God must have a cause”. But that isn’t the statement, it’s not even close. Logically, rationally and scientifically:

It’s Impossible to Traverse an Infinite Series
The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite
The First Cause Must be Uncreated, Eternal

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 June 2010 - 03:59 PM

I should have made it more clear when I answered that question.  The physics required to demonstrate that the big bang is true were only briefly gone over by me in a geology class regarding the movements within the cosmos. 

View Post


The physics required to demonstrate that the big bang is mostly hypothetical conjecture. And, besides, the “singularity” is covered in Genesis One

My own education regarding quantum physics is limited as well, having only taken up to physics 212 (unfortunately, we all can't be physicists).  I know that the gap between 0 to 10^-43 seconds of the big bang is the only point that cannot be explained by quantum physics. 

View Post

Again, hypothetical conjecture.

But that's just it...trying to discuss things that existed before any laws of nature existed is impossible to discuss.  There is no time, space, or physics...there's just conjecture.  Trying to discuss things scientifically before the big bang is impossible without the laws of science present.  The best we can do is guess.

View Post

Once more conjecture (even as you stated)


Incidently, I noticed you put Logic as one of the ways you can further the discussion on origins before the big bang.  I'm curious.

View Post

Okay


True enough, but I don't adhere to any particular religious beliefs.  I do believe, for example, that the search for truth does not lie in a single religion.  I don't think that disqualifies me as an agnostic, but perhaps it does.

View Post

Actually, you don’t have to adhere to any particular religious beliefs to be religious (you may want to re-read the definition for religion).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users