Vorkosigan

I have seen & heard this "no reason to believe" statement repeated over & over & over for years. It is reminiscent of mantra chanting done by those who HAVE reason to believe. The problem I see is that by saying there is no reason to believe in a Supreme Being, one is also saying there is no reason to believe he himself (the subordinate being) has a reason for existence.

You mean "externally supplied reason for existence." I feel sorry for you, if your life has no meaning without devotion to a fictional deity. I have two kids, a wonderful wife, a horde of students, a radio show, an editing business and numerous friends. Any one of those would be ample reason to exist.

how is it possible that at the very beginning of this chain there is not also life?

It is well known that life is built up from non-living self-replicating systems. Look into abiogenesis.

There is a reason for every single action. You insist there is no reason to accept that there is a Supreme Creator, even though there is not one good scientific theory to explain creation.

Creation, by definition, is not a scientific concept, so of course no scientific theory addresses it. Science has not yet demonstrated by which of the many proposed methods the first living systems were formed.

The theory that life comes from matter is still just a theory,

A "theory" is a framework or model for studying the world. "Theory" in science means something different than what laymen typically think. For example, Gravity is a theory too. You can test it by jumping out the window.

Life of course comes from matter; the carbon atoms in your body are identical to those in rocks or the soil.

a guess which may be completely false, yet it is accepted as truth. Since no scientist can demonstrate life coming from chemicals, I see no reason to believe in that theory.

Life comes from chemicals every minute of every day. Your body is composed of thousands of different chemicals, for example. That is why scientists accept that life originated from non-living self-replicating systems (many different ones are known).

We are off topic, though, and I will have to move this thread to E/C if it continues on this path. Can you explain more clearly? What reasons do you see for the existence of gods?

Vorkosigan

Mageth

It is because Life is infinitely more complex than our most complex chemicals, yet the theory rests on the notion that these basic elements we do know about are what brought us into our current condition. There is no scientific explanation for the step from no consciousness to consciousness.

"Our most complex chemicals" are, in a sense, life. They are complex "chemicals" (molecules such as DNA) that are, so far as we know, only produced by living organisms.

See my previous post; there are theories that explain life, and consciousness, as emergent properties of the universe.

Positing the need for an external Creator God to explain life and consciousness is no more than a primitive attempt to explain what we do not know with magick. We no longer think lightning is caused by Zeus or Thor, because we now understand the science behind it. While our understanding in the areas of abiogenisis and consciousness is admittedly still not complete, we've made a good start, we're making progress, and I have no reason to believe that we won't someday more fully, if not completely, understand these phenomenon.

Your arguments are arguments from ignorance. "I don't understand it, so it must be magick!"

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

God exists eternally, without beginning or ending. We can not properly understand this, so the first question we ask is "Who created God?".

This is not a logical question, as God is Absolute. God is transcendental to birth & death, He exists independently of any circumstances including the need for a creator.

What is this other than human-invented mumbo-jumbo? If as you claim we simple humans can't understand god, on what do you base all these absolute statements about god?

I Am Not This Body

Agreed, I worded that a bit ambiguously. Your reasons for living are all subjective yet valid, however I was alluding to reason meaning the actual underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence, in this instance the reason for our existence & knowledge of this existence.
So you are saying that this explanation is possible & further that you believe it to be true. So at the base level you are no different from the theist who receives an explanation on the existence of God that is possible, and who believes it to be true.

If life "self organized" at some imaginary point in time, why does it not do it now? When will it do it again? On what empirical evidence to you take this premise as truth? Every instance you will ever see of life occurring is a result of prior life.

Mageth

So you are saying that this explanation is possible & further that you believe it to be true. So at the base level you are no different from the theist who receives an explanation on the existence of God that is possible, and who believes it to be true.

I said "Matter+time+self-organizing principles = life." All these factors (matter, time, SOP, and life) are known, measurable, testable properties of our universe, and thus fall under the umbrella of science. All are independently "possible" and also exist. Theories using known properties of the universe to explain phenomenon such as abiogenisis are testable, falsifiable, scientific theories. There are many possible theories; I hold that there one such theory (which we may or may not have come up with yet) that best explains the origin of life. In other words I believe it to be true that there is a natural, scientific explanation for the origin of life. I don't claim to know what that explanation is (if I did and could demonstrate it, I'd be sure to win the Nobel Prize).

Gods are not "known", demonstrable, measurable properties of the universe like matter, time and self-organizing principles, and Creation "theories" are not scientific theories. Thus what one thinks is possible or claims to know about god(s) and creation is quite different from what I think or claim to know about nature and abiogenisis.

If life "self organized" at some imaginary point in time, why does it not do it now? When will it do it again? On what empirical evidence to you take this premise as truth?

How do we know abiogenisis hasn't happened elsewhere, isn't happening now, and won't happen in the future elsewhere in the universe? I think it's highly probable that it has, is, and will.

Matter, time, and self-organizing principles all have quite a bit of empirical evidence to back them, I would assume. And an odd claim from a theist, asking for empirical evidence. What empirical evidence can you present for God and Creation myths?

Further, you and I are both the product of self-organization. We both started off as an egg and a sperm that merged, self-organization took over, and voila, nine months later a human baby was born! (unless you think there's little angels in there making sure all the cells go to the right places).

Every instance you will ever see of life occurring is a result of prior life.

Are you a seer? Did you read this in my tea leaves, or perhaps in the stars? How can you possibly know what I will see in the future? Science has amazed me many times in my life.

I Am Not This Body

God does not need a creator, being that He is Absolute He exists beyond circumstance. We are not absolute, we are in existence only due to cause & effect.
As I stated earlier, I made a mistake & left "reason" up to interpretation. You may believe those are reasons for living, but where is your evidence that what you perceive to be friends, family, love, and accolades are NOT an illusion & indeed fictional? Where is your evidence that the deity is fictional & not your own imperfect perception of the universe? From where are you receiving the authority to make this claim?
This is not well-known, it is well-guessed. Until it can be demonstrated it is among the best fiction the scientist has come up with.
So what kind of concept is it? And if the BB does not address creation, what is it addressing? Yes, by jumping out the window I can demonstrate or "prove" there is gravity, however where is the demonstration or "proof" that life comes from matter? There exists none, the scientific method ends at the hypothesis stage when dealing with life.
That fact that I share carbon atoms with rocks is not evidence that "I", which is my consciousness, comes from matter. Until I see this demonstrated I have no reason to believe it to be true.
No, chemicals are coming from life. An orange tree is producing citric acid among others. Where is your evidence that chemicals in the absence of a life force produce an orange tree? When a person dies, he still has all the chemicals in his body that he did when he was alive. So why is one person dead & another alive? Why is there no chemical combination which can GIVE life to a dead body?
Well, I didn't intend for the post to go off topic, and to give reasons I see for the existence of God would require another topic altogether.
You said it yourself, "so far as we know, only produced by living organisms". So if these life carrying chemicals are only produced by living organisms, how could they produce themselves? They can not. Thus chemicals do not "produce" life. Life produces chemicals.

So you decry theism as false, yet fraud can only be known in relation to its genuine counterpart.

You place your faith that someday someone will understand, and I have no reason to believe they will know anything more in 100,000 years than they know right now. I do not place my faith in postdated checks.
Yours are arguments from ignorance as well. "I don't understand it, but maybe someday somewhere a super scientist will figure it all out!"
This is not a logical question, as God is Absolute. God is transcendental to birth & death, He exists independently of any circumstances including the need for a creator.
Where is your evidence that these are human-invented ideas? I get my information from the same sources you do. Literature & people who know the subject.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: I Am Not This Body ]</p>

I Am Not This Body

We don't know that it is, so why is your guess that it is haoppening any more legitimate than one which says it is not?

And you say that it is probable that abiogenesis is the start of all life, yet we cannot demonstrate that it is happening today, & then you say it will happen again in the future?

So you are saying you expect something which happened in the past to occur in the future? Do you not see the logical inconsistencies therein?

I Am Not This Body

Wrong, we are not the product of self-organization, we are the product of the conscious mixing of the sperm & egg. The sperm knows to impregnate the egg, & the egg knows to allow the sperm to do so. Therefore we can not be a completely "self" organized creature, there must be life existing prior.

Why would i have to be a seer or drink tea leaves to observe this? I can say it because I view it to be true every day. I do not see any evidence of the opposite being true, that from nothing something is born.

If your theory is true, why don't stones give birth? They have chemicals too, you know.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: I Am Not This Body ]</p>

K

I am not this body:

If you can call God absolute and not needing to be created, I'm certainly justified saying the same thing about the universe. The only difference is that there is actual evidence that the universe exists.

Mageth

You said it yourself, "so far as we know, [complex chemicals] only produced by living organisms". So if these life carrying chemicals are only produced by living organisms, how could they produce themselves? They can not. Thus chemicals do not "produce" life. Life produces chemicals.

Theories of abiogenisis give plausible explanations how simpler chemical systems produced Life. Living organisms are complex chemical systems. They take simpler chemicals (and energy, aka sunlight in photosynthesis) and produce (through chemical processes such as catalysis) the chemicals necessary for the organism, including proteins, enzymes, and extraordinarily complex molecules such as DNA.

Every organism is a textbook on relatively simple chemicals and chemical processes combined to form more complex systems and forming more complex chemicals.

Read up on the subjects I mentioned before to gain understanding on how complex systems such as living organisms can arise from simpler systems; on how simple self-replicating chemical systems can be the basis for abiogenisis.

Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea is a good read which deals more with evolution than with abiogenisis, but gives good background on how complexity can arise from simpler systems without requiring a designer/creator. There are other perhaps more relevant books but I'm not at home right now and can't recall the titles and authors; perhaps if you're interested others could recommend some good reading on the subject.

So you decry theism as false, yet fraud can only be known in relation to its genuine counterpart.

I'm not real sure what your point is here.

It is not true that something cannot be disproven or disbelieved without knowing a "genuine counterpart." I have ample reasons to disbelieve the various Genesis creation myths without knowing for a fact what the actual naturalistic explanations for life etc. are.

I claim naturalistic explanations are sufficient for life, the universe, and consciousness. No god(s) needed. And as I've seen no evidence that god(s) exist that stands up to scrutiny, I have no reason to believe in god(s).

I don't claim to "know" the naturalistic explanations. "We don't currently know" is an acceptable standpoint on the subject. There are plausible theories; one or more of these may prove to be true. Time will tell.

You place your faith that someday someone will understand, and I have no reason to believe they will know anything more in 100,000 years than they know right now. I do not place my faith in postdated checks.

I'm not placing faith in anything. Science has added much to human knowledge in the last few hundred years, an astonishing amount just in the time I've been around. Magickal explanations and mysteries have been toppled by science often in the past. Why should I or you think science won't continute to add much more to our understanding of the universe, answering many more mysteries, in just the next 10 years, much less the next 100,000?

Further, as I've said, I believe everything has a naturalistic explanation. I doubt if we'll discover all naturalistic explanations for all "mysteries" within my lifetime. Nevertheless, I'm not going to fall back on magick to explain something just because we don't understand it.

Yours are arguments from ignorance as well. "I don't understand it, but maybe someday somewhere a super scientist will figure it all out!

You don't understand what an argument from ignorance is. "I don't understand it, therefore goddidit" is an argument from ignorance.

I've read a bit on science in this area, and you'd be amazed at what we've learned about self-replicating systems, self-organization, complexity theory, abiogenisis etc. just in the last 10 years (all are relatively new sciences, anyway). Therefore I'm not ignorant on the subject. Not an expert, but not ignorant.

I don't think it'll be some "super scientist" figuring it all out; I think it will be continuing human endeavor in these fields of endeavor that will continue to advance our knowledge in these areas.

And how else is science to progress? Scientists tend to take things we don't understand and figure them out. That's the fun of it!

Anyway, by argument from ignorance, I mean of course that you say a phenomenon isn't/can't be understood, and thus must have a magickal explanation. I take the scientific approach, which is quite different. A phenomenon may not be presently understood, and ultimately may not be able to be fully understood. However, not understanding a phenomenon in no way means there must be a magickal explanation. As long as some phenomenon is not understood, science will continue to search for natural explanations for the phenomenon. So far science has been by far our best tool for understanding the universe; much of what we used to attribute to magick we now have accepted scientific explanations for. In fact, we've come upon nothing that must have a magickal explanation. I see this trend continuing.

Where is your evidence that these are human-invented ideas? I get my information from the same sources you do. Literature & people who know the subject.

I base my lack of belief largely on the lack of any evidence that gods are anything but human inventions. I have seen no evidence that any gods actually exist that stands up to critical scrutiny. I know humans invent many fictional characters and believe many things that prove not to be true. How can one claim such ideas as not human inventions, if one can only read them in human-written books and hear them from humans? Where is your evidence that gods are anything but human-invented ideas?