The origin of biology

[Esquilax]

concepts of mathematics (e.g. the mental concept of a differential equation, etc) exists outside the physical world. It exists even if you remove this entire world. Ergo, its a supernatural concept (as per the above definition).

Math and logic are mental constructs created as labels to apply to physical objects and the interactions between them. They exist within, and are dependent on, human minds to exist, and human minds are part of the physical world. If you wish to disagree, then defend your assertion: without recourse to human-derived identifications and labels, show me a math or a logic. According to you they exist objectively and independently of humans, so you should be able to do that, else your claim really isn't justified by anything, now is it?

... I mean, it's a silly little word game you're playing anyway. It's just a happy accident that it's also wrong even within the context of the self-serving game itself.

[Esquilax]

Without appealing to the lack of a natural explanation for one or more observations of the real world, how did you determine that the supernatural had a positive likelihood?

You are making a logical fallacy.

You are (correctly) assuming that the set of possible explanations expand in the presence of new evidence.
But you are ignoring that new evidence can also shrink the set of possible explanations.

Accordingly, its is completely fine to say that two statements:
A     and      NOT A 
are both possible, with non-zero likelihood, until further evidence reduces the likelihood of one of them to exact zero

If either A or not A cannot be established as possible, and are in fact indicated to be impossible or non-present by all available data, then there's no reason at all to assign a positive likelihood to them. You're shifting the burden of proof by expecting us to prove you wrong before you'll take your bald assertion of the supernatural off the table. The fallacy is yours, not mine, and my question stands.

... You know, along with the rest of the post that you clipped out.

[Ravenshire]

Really, Truth?  You came here to argue for God and, "abiogenesis isn't a scientific fact yet" is the BEST you could come up with?  It's like you're not even trying...*yawn*

Can you please show me a peer reviewed replicated experiment that was able to recreate abiogenensis in vitro?
If you can, I retract my statements.

Go ahead. I'll be waiting here

Can you please show a peer reviewed replicated experiment that shows the supernatural to be the explanation for fucking anything?

[Alex K]

Are claiming that mathematics and logic are supernatural?

Please explain...

@LadyCamus, I'm glad you're enjoying this

@Simon.
Sure. I'll explain it below.

We agreed (myself and you, Simon) on the following definition of supernatural:

supernatural (or metaphysical, if you want) simply means a concept that exists outside the physical world.

concepts of mathematics (e.g. the mental concept of a differential equation, etc) exists outside the physical world. It exists even if you remove this entire world. Ergo, its a supernatural concept (as per the above definition).

As soon as you grant independent existence to any concept, it becomes somewhat supernatural. Like the concept of root beer floats, among others. Why single out maths?

[truth_seeker]

concepts of mathematics (e.g. the mental concept of a differential equation, etc) exists outside the physical world. It exists even if you remove this entire world. Ergo, its a supernatural concept (as per the above definition).

Math and logic are mental constructs created as labels to apply to physical objects and the interactions between them. They exist within, and are dependent on, human minds to exist, and human minds are part of the physical world. If you wish to disagree, then defend your assertion: without recourse to human-derived identifications and labels, show me a math or a logic. According to you they exist objectively and independently of humans, so you should be able to do that, else your claim really isn't justified by anything, now is it?

I completely disagree.
Here's a very simple thought experiment:
**Before** all human beings made the statement that says: "1 + 1 = 2".
Wasn't it actually true? Ofcourse it was!
The question to you: where did it exist? there was no human mind in which it was contained

You are making a logical fallacy.

You are (correctly) assuming that the set of possible explanations expand in the presence of new evidence.
But you are ignoring that new evidence can also shrink the set of possible explanations.

Accordingly, its is completely fine to say that two statements:
A     and      NOT A 
are both possible, with non-zero likelihood, until further evidence reduces the likelihood of one of them to exact zero

If either A or not A cannot be established as possible, and are in fact indicated to be impossible or non-present by all available data, then there's no reason at all to assign a positive likelihood to them. You're shifting the burden of proof by expecting us to prove you wrong before you'll take your bald assertion of the supernatural off the table. The fallacy is yours, not mine, and my question stands.

... You know, along with the rest of the post that you clipped out.

if something was "in fact indicated to be impossible", then we wouldn't be having this entire discussion of including both possibilities A and (not A). My entire argument (check the OP) was exactly that because of the absence of fact, we do need to allow for the two possibilities (with varying likelihoods).

Factual evidence absent = two possibilities (A) and (not A) with varying likelihood
Factual evidence present = one known outcome (A)
Its really very simple, I'm not sure why are you making a counter-argument.

Can you please show me a peer reviewed replicated experiment that was able to recreate abiogenensis in vitro?
If you can, I retract my statements.

Go ahead. I'll be waiting here

Can you please show a peer reviewed replicated experiment that shows the supernatural to be the explanation for fucking anything?

Exactly my point. There is no peer review experiment supporting the supernatural. Therefore, it stays within the two possibilities (A and not A) as explained above. Exactly my point.

[ignoramus]

1+1 is logical observational statement of fact.
Why would you think it existed or didn't exist before conscious life?

When meteors fell, the ones twice as heavy did twice the damage? Why?
Asking such innate questions is like saying: shit is brown, not blue, therefore supernatural!

[truth_seeker]

1+1 is logical observational statement of fact.
Why would you think it existed or didn't exist before conscious life?

Follow this argument.
It has been claimed that consciousness (your emotions thoughts etc) are simply a network of chemical reactions in your brain. (in other words, a purely natural phenomenon).

Therefore, when you die, or when human are not present, those emotions and thoughts have no existence. Because, as per the above worldview, those emotions/thoughts were simply a network of matter, so when that network was destroyed, the thoughts/emotions are destroyed too.

The same does not follow for logic.
the 1+1 statement holds true even without a human mind as I mentioned in the last post.

the question is then: Where does it exist? shouldn't it have been nonexistent, just like the other mental constructs of thoughts, emotions?

[RozKek]

1+1 is logical observational statement of fact.
Why would you think it existed or didn't exist before conscious life?

Follow this argument.
It has been claimed that consciousness (your emotions thoughts etc) are simply a network of chemical reactions in your brain. (in other words, a purely natural phenomenon).

Therefore, when you die, or when human are not present, those emotions and thoughts have no existence. Because, as per the above worldview, those emotions/thoughts were simply a network of matter, so when that network was destroyed, the thoughts/emotions are destroyed too.

The same does not follow for logic.
the 1+1 statement holds true even without a human mind as I mentioned in the last post.

the question is then: Where does it exist? shouldn't it have been nonexistent, just like the other mental constructs of thoughts, emotions?

1+1=2 didn't exist anywhere. It is just words and symbols made by humans to describe something. The 1 represents one thing/object and the 2 represents two of those things/objects. Made by humans, for humans to understand. I don't understand the confusion.

[Ravenshire]

Follow this argument.
It has been claimed that consciousness (your emotions thoughts etc) are simply a network of chemical reactions in your brain. (in other words, a purely natural phenomenon).

Therefore, when you die, or when human are not present, those emotions and thoughts have no existence. Because, as per the above worldview, those emotions/thoughts were simply a network of matter, so when that network was destroyed, the thoughts/emotions are destroyed too.

The same does not follow for logic.
the 1+1 statement holds true even without a human mind as I mentioned in the last post.

the question is then: Where does it exist? shouldn't it have been nonexistent, just like the other mental constructs of thoughts, emotions?

1+1=2 didn't exist anywhere. It is just words and symbols made by humans to describe something. The 1 represents one thing/object and the 2 represents two of those things/objects. Made by humans, for humans to understand. I don't understand the confusion.

It's not confusion. It's willful ignorance coupled with obfuscation.

[robvalue]

Nope.

I've not even heard a sensible definition of what "supernatural" is meant to be.

It requires an equivocation between our theories about the laws of nature and the actual laws themselves; and also assumes science is 100% accurate while saying it "can't account for some things".

However you define this supernatural thing, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it is possible such a thing exists. I covered all this in a video recently:

It's also in no way useful to slap this kind of language on the unexplained, except to try and make magical explanations sound less ridiculous.

Any supernatural causation is indistinguishable from another; which is indistinguishable from no supernatural causation at all. If we had a way to detect the difference, then it would be within the realm of science.

http://youtu.be/J5u5-Bg2ENQ