bluefugue

True, consciousness remains a puzzle. But they're working on it.

Philosoft

I don't know about this. Carbon-based life is certainly not "fragile." Microbes that live on the wrong side of deep-sea magma vents seem the very antithesis of fragility. I suspect your incredulity may be directed at the flexibility of the carbon atom itself. But the periodic table represents a continuum of sub-atomic combinations. In any such group, the existence of a carbon-like member is inevitable.

So, you might say, how is it there exists a set of building blocks such that a carbon is inevitable? Well, big-bang cosmology has some reasonably solid mathematics to back up the theories of the origin of the four fundamental forces. Alas, this all is often irrelevant because you are asking a question which presupposes a supernatural answer.

<strong> This "fact" hardly follows from our ignorance.

<strong> I suppose if many constants were different, there would not be a universe at all. It's possible that many of these values you think the constants can take on are total non-starters. But it's certain that you are giving live an a priori exalted stature when it isn't clear that such a judgement is warranted.

Jayhawker Soule

Neuroscience is working on it. See, for example, <a href="http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/awconlang.html" target="_blank">Evolution and the cognitive neuroscience of awareness, consciousness and language</a> or articles such as <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm" target="_blank">The Biological Basis of Morality</a>. How, on the other hand, has your God-theory "explained" consciousness, and how do you propose to test this explanation?
How very nice. In fact, "a lot of very smart people" identify with a plethora of pseudoscientific silliness. What's more, you too can enroll at, for example, the American Pacific University, where "a lot of very smart people" will teach you to become a 'very smart person' with your very own Ph.D. in Esoteric Studies.
So what? There's "no direct survival advantage" in men's nipples either. How has your God-theory "explained" advanced mathematical skills, and how do you propose to test this explanation?
Why do you presume a "Why". You take a teleological view and then ask others to come up with some 'purpose'. How has your God-theory "explained" why there is something instead of nothing, and how do you propose to test this explanation?
To marvel is one thing, but to fabricate untestable explanations is quite another.
God-of-the-Gaps: "something that cannot be explained or defined by any means at our disposal within the universe" cannot explain or define, by any means at our disposal, anything within the universe. "God did it" explains nothing.
OK
Logical does not equal reasonable, and this fetish with the logically possible is getting tiresome. The realm of the logically possible is inhabited by a near endless supply of fantasies. What is logically impossible about a Purple Unicorn or the Faery Kingdom? How has your God-theory "explained" which of these fantasies are 'real', and how do you propose to test this explanation?
There is no "teleological argument", no testable cosmological theory, and no warrant for a belief in God(s).

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by luvluv:

"Snowflakes are ordered but they do not even approach biological complexity."

But all I have to do is provide reason to think that a natural explanation will, in the end, suffice. Now I've provided some evidence for my side, and it's your turn to provide evidence for your side. Snowflakes (there are numerous other examples) are ordered and complex, and while not as complex as some biological processes, we have some reason to think complexity can arise from relative simplicity. DNA evolved the way humans evolved, from simpler information-bearing structures.

"Let's be clear that by supernaturalistic I am not saying 'magical', simply something that is literally 'outside of nature', something that cannot be explained or defined by any means at our disposal within the universe."

Then this will be an uphill battle for you, because there's already good evidence that DNA will be explainable in principle naturalistically: inductive evidence from all the other naturalistic explanations.

"The ability to discover our universe, to understand that space curves, or that e=mc^2, is not a biological advantage."

These abilities are the consequences of biologically advantageous big brains.

"As far as I know, the origin of life science, to date, is one long record of dismal failure."

We've observed the formation of all the building blocks of DNA in early natural earth conditions -- all essential sugars, nucleotide bases, etc. We have plausible hypotheses about precursors to DNA. These all provide some reason to think a naturalistic explanation will suffice, so it's your turn to provide evidence for your supernaturalistic explanation. Note that in terms of our experience, all designers are naturalistic, so that's another inductive mark against you.

"I'd agree but the point I am trying to make is not that theism is the only rational option but that both theism (or deism) and naturalism are, at present, both fully logical views."

Ockham's Razor rules out theistic and deistic explanations, so far. At this point, it may even be best to withhold belief in any explanation, which means that atheism is still completely supportable.

"There are working scientists whose research has lead them to a deistic view."

The vast majority of cosmologists is composed of atheists.

"Recognizing that there is something instead of nothing, that this something, the universe, burst into existence as a result of something outside of the universe,"

Remember, this provides zero support for theism or deism, and 0 + 0 = 0.

"...that the universe has parameters which, if altered slightly, would not allow for any carbon-based life form to exist..."

This is an example of the Lottery Fallacy. Mere improbability is never good evidence of "not chance." 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.

"...that our genetic material encodes, stores, and translates information, something that in our experience only Intelligence can do..."

Well, information is kind of in the eye of the beholder. A case could be made that ocean waves encode, store, and translate information from wind and gravity patterns to patterns in the sand. I think all you've really got to work with here is complexity, and natural processes produce that all the time.

"We have not establihed that God CANNOT learn, we have only established that there is nothing FOR God to learn. The limitation is not with God, but with his environment, which cannot possibly produce anything for Him to learn about."

Suppose I'm permanently locked in a room with no food in it. I will never get out, and there will never be any food in the room. Now, let's see how the concept of "ability" plays out, to see whether I have the ability to eat. Suppose we define "x has the ability to y" as "there is a possible world in which x does y." I fail to have the ability to eat. Let's define it as "if x were to choose to y, then x would y." Again, I fail to have the ability to eat. I can't think of a way to define "ability" to give me the ability to eat in that situation.

"We don't know that God LACKS THE ABILITY to do evil, we only know that He won't do it."

Again, it seems that however we cash out "ability," God fails to have the ability. If God chose to do evil, He would fail; there is no possible world in which God does evil; and so on. To borrow an analogy from Morriston: suppose there is a person who suffers from a severe form of mental paralysis. If she could only decide what to do, she could do it, but she's mired in indecision. Would this sort of being be all-powerful, under our intuitive feelings for "power"?

Suppose we placed God in some sort of very strong box that wouldn't let Him exercise any of His powers. The limitation would be on the environment, not on God -- yet could God be all-powerful? Suppose we placed me in a room that did not contain a magical wand that would allow me to do anything. Again, the limitation seems to be on my environment, not on me. If I had the wand, I could do anything; similarly, if there were something for God to learn, He could learn it -- but this is just equivalent to saying that if God weren't omniscient, He could learn.

Hawkingfan

Originally posted by luvluv:

"As far as I know, the origin of life science, to date, is one long record of dismal failure."

Ever hear of clones?

Hawkingfan

originally posted by luvluv"...no direct survival advantage for advanced mathematics..."

Where do I begin with this one? Are you kidding? In man's early use of logic, math would have played a crucial role to survival. Math was used to determine the calendar year which helped with agriculture. Math and science was important in improving living conditions through better designs of housing structures and tools. Exercises in math improved ones mental capabilities. The smarter and more logical you were, the better your chances were to survive. Advances in math = advances in science. One cannot progress without the other. Through math and science, we have been able to prolong human lives through medicine and technology.

Synaesthesia

More specifically, it's the fine tuning fallacy. The assumption that either an event comes about by a totally random choice between equally likely and arbitrary alternatives, or there's a big man in the sky making sure things turn out the way they do.

Keith Russell

Luvluv and Reasonable:

I have said this before, that logic (reason) can construct seemingly sound viewpoints, even if starting from very irrational premises.

Christianity can be 'logically derived' from its premise (though it is most often not). But, if the intial premises ('God's' existence, the relative accuracy of the Bible, etc.) are not themselves rational (consistent with evidence from observed reality) then the resulting viewpoint (however logically it proceeds from its initial premises) cannot--and should not--be considered 'rational'.

They are thus not 'fully rational', nor should logic (reason) be blamed for their inaccuracy.

Keith.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

There is a distinction between logic and reason, and an even greater one between myself and luvluv.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

luvluv

Folks, all I was doing was making the extremely uncontroversial statement that God has not been disproven yet, and it is not yet illogical nor IRRATIONAL (can someone distinguish the two?) to believe in Him. The general educated public would consider these statements to be pretty common sensical. I'm just stating that it is not a lack of intellect nor of information that makes individuals believe in God. Though I might lack the depth of training that some of you may have in specialized fields (I'm not a scientist) I doubt, in a general sense, that I am less informed than you on the issues surrounding the possibilities of God's existence.

May I advance the possibility that there may exist things which are simply beyond the boundaries of science? Why is it such a terrifying concept to you that there might be realities which science cannot reach? Science is not a god, it is a tool. Like all tools, it cannot be used for every job. Why are you so terrified of mystery? Recognizing a mystery is not embracing ignorance, it is embracing humility. It is recognizing our place in the cosmos. I'm not afraid of science. It has brought us wonderful gifts. But I am concerned with the notion that all ideas or questions that cannot be answered scientifically must be ignored.

It almost makes me sad to be asked why I think "why" is a necessary question. It seems so sad to me that someone would actually be willing to self-mutilate their spirit, to castrate their intellect by literally severing off any question that cannot be answered within the confines of their narrow world-view. "Why" is the most important question of human existence. "Why" is a question about meaning, and the quest for meaning is an indivisible aspect of the human experience. To ask why is part of being human, and to not ask why would be a form of suicide. To hide from the questions we can't answer through science only makes sense if science is our god. Is science your god? If it isn't, then there is no reason to expect it to answer all questions or to decide ultimate matters of meaning. To do so is to make a god out of a tool, and to minimize both yourself and science in the process.

Okay, now that I am off my soap-box...

Folks, I'm not going to respond to all of the general commentary made by all of you. The orignial point of my post already conceded that there are plausible naturalistic answers to SOME of life's deeper questions, but for some of the more difficult ones naturalism is a long, LONG way off, and it is likely, I say again, LIKELY that there are questions science will never be able to answer. Now the question is, if this turns out to be the case, is our only option regarding these unanswerable questions to ignore them? I don't think so. That would be putting the cart before the horse... science was made for man, not man for science. Science cannot now and should not ever mark the limits of human endeavor. Frankly, that is a very saddening thought to me, that someone would be so committed to the naturalistic worldview that they would be willing to close their eyes and their ears to all questions science can't answer.

Okay I got back on the soapbox again. Sorry.

Keith Russell in fairness to me I was arguing for a DEISTIC possibility, I never specifically mentioned Christianity or even theism. I am not saying that a belief in God is plausible on the basis of the Bible or the Incarnation. I am saying it is plausible from the current state of science, particularly the dead ends that science is encountering.

Reasonable Doubt and Thomas Metcalf, your blessed assurance that a workable origin of life scenario is just around the corner is completely unjustified. I'm not saying that I have a deistic framework yet, only that so far applying naturalism to this realm of science has been a dismal failure. I've read some of the quotes from the ISSOL conference and frankly I've never heard scientists sound so hopeless in regards to any endeavor. I even read an essay from Francis Crick in which he stated that every time he writes an origin of life paper he swears it is the last one he will ever write, because they keep running into dead end after dead end.

I know that you naturalists have the tendency to use inductive reasoning, but really it is the most faulty kind. It can hardly be called "logic" to assume that because we have figured out how certain things work, that we will therefore figure out how EVERYTHING works. That is admirable faith, but it is pathetic logic. We simply will not figure out how everything works, and therefore the key question is how will we react towards that which we cannot explain? With humility which allows for all possibilities, or with rigid scientific egotism that says... arrogantly and pathetically... "The questions that we cannot answer should not be asked!"

Can you accept that there are good reasons to accept an idea that you nevertheless reject? I suppose on one level this is a matter of maturity, and not logic, but that should make this easier and not harder. Only children think that there are no good reasons to hold positions they do not hold, and I know you are no child. I know there are good reasons to be an atheist, and yet I am not an atheist. Can you not concede that there are good reasons to being a theist, and yet not be a theist? What prevents you from being able to hold such a stance?

Thomas Metcalf:

I don't have a side, I'm not supporting a side. I'm just saying this is the incidence in which, to me, naturalism fails the most blatantly. My side is simply that there is no promising naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on the table, and my evidence is the fact that there is no promising naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on the table.

That's just kind of silly, isn't it? I'm not very impressed with inductive evidence in totally unrelated fields in a situation where there is absolutely no empirical evidence and in a situation in which the deductive evidence would seem to contradict a very, very weak inductive premise. I think the most relevant fact regarding origin of life studies is that it has the concerned scientists totally baffled. That other scientists in other fields have figured other subjects out is hardly relevant.

Again, you are ASSERTING that higher mathematical abilities go along with big brains. I have never seen it demonstrated that such abilities merely attend our more directly advantageous brain functions. They seem to be separate. If you can demonstrate how these abilities are simply "along for the ride" so to speak, then we can close the matter. But if they developed independantly it is rather hard to account for them, and still harder to account for the fact that, given their totally irrelavence to our ancestors survival (at least until the last few thousand years or so) that we have managed to retain the ability. One might expect abilities like this which, for so many thousands of years, have had no effect whatsoever on our survival to have been lost in the genetic shuffle... to have quietly died out of our race.

Are you sure about this? Most of the recent material I have read shows that scientists are at a loss to explain how these precursors could have come into existence on earth. I thought that geologists had determined that the original atmosphere of earth was extremely unlikely to have been able to produce the appropriate building blocks in anything like the necessary amount. (I believe that early origin of life scientists thought that the primordial earth was rich in amonia and found that it wasn't, or the other way around?)

All I know is, somewhere you guys are reading far more optimistic accounts about the progress of origin of life science than I am.

Ockham's Razor states that one should believe in the explanation that has the least assumptions, does it not? Do you realize how many unsupported assumptions one would have to hold to believe that life arose from non-life? That mind arose from non-mind? To believe in the supernaturalistic solution one would only have to suppose that a designer exists (he/she/it would not even have to be God. I am not arguing specifically for Christianity here). I don't know that Ockham's Razor would support the naturalistic explanation for this particular question. To believe that life was designed by a superior intelligence (not necessarily a deity) does not involve any more ad hoc assumptions than the belief that life arose via natural processes, particuarly when: no one has ever observed these natural processes, no one has been able to reproduce these natural processes, and the conditions of the early earth were incompatible with the natural processes.

How do you know this?

At any rate, wouldn't it be fair to say that there are far more Deists and Theists in cosmology than in any other science? And why do you suppose that is? This is not an idle question, I really would like for you to answer it: why do you think there are more deists and theists in cosmology and astronomy than in other sciences? Do you think it is because Deism and Theism are so implausible?

But it CONTRADICTS naturalism, and that was my point. So given three solutions, two of which having no proof and ONE OF WHICH HAVING BEEN RULED OUT, then the solutions with no proof would seem to be the more plausible.

Again, you are commiting the favorite fallacy of this board, that of attributing logical fallacies to non-logical arguments. Mere improbability is ALWAYS evidence of "not chance", though it is never proof of "not chance".

If it is highly unlikely, in some situation, that I broke a bottle over your head by accident, then that most certainly is evidence that I did it on purpose, even thought it does not prove that I did it on purpose.

Most of the fallacy-flingin' (I just made that up. Man, I'm cool.) that goes on around here is totally misplaced. I am not trying to PROVE anything to you, I am suggesting that there is EVIDENCE for certain hypothesis. Evidence that falls short of proof is precisely the sort of rationality on which we base our daily lives (and the basis on which we send people to their deaths in our court system [In America, anyway]). Evidentiary arguments are relavent and rational, workable conclusions can be made from the ammassing of such evidences.

No, they don't. To quote Paul Davies, crystals (and snowflakes) are ordered. Their information content, however, is incredibly low. As Davies puts it, a snowflake or a crystal is the equivalent of writing the words "I love you, I love you, I love you" over and over again in a huge book. Biological complexity of the type which we find in the simplest life forms has specified information in it that exceeds an entire volume of the Encyclopedia Britanica.

Well, no you wouldn't in that scenario, since there are possible worlds in which you would not be separated from food. Perhaps this should be formalized more carefully, though. I think most people would agree that you still have the ability to eat food, your inability to eat it is circumstantial and in no way demonstrates a lack of power on your part.

How do you know this? These seem to be theological and not logical statements to me. Why would omnibenevolence refer to the inabliity to do evil rather than the refusal to do evil? After all, a rock is incapable of doing evil... is it omnibenevolent? Indeed, it would seem that the ability to do evil would be a pre-requisite of being good. No one could call something good which has no capacity of being evil. Goodness is in some fashion always a praise of restraint. At any rate, you are relying on premises that have at best theological support. They don't proceed necessarily from the concept of omnibenevolence, in my opinion.

Hawkingfan:

I'm not talking about consumer math or even architecture here. I'm talking about the kind of advanced calculus and highly theoretical math which has not had any biological advantage until very, very recently. I'm talking about the kind of math that Hawking, Godel, Einstein, and their ilk have done. I just finished reading Paul Davies The Mind of God (as if you couldn't tell by the rate at which I am quoting him) and he has a lot to say about the mystery of our ability to do higher math, and the mystery surrounding the explanatory power of math. It's a good and relatively quick read.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>