Thank you for all your responses. I really do appreciate them. After looking back at my original post and the arguments presented, I have to agree that my syllogism was flawed. While I still think it was in a valid logical form, i.e., that of modus ponens (If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.), I have committed some fallacies in the premises themselves. The first premise was a false dichotomy as pointed out by Eilonnwy and Adrian. Furthermore, even if the first was fixed as suggested by Adrian, the second would still fall into the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance, again as pointed out by Eilonnwy and Adrian.
While I agree that my first premise was a false dichotomy I do not agree that Eilonnwy’s cite to the concept of panspermia demonstrates this. The “seeds” of this seem to either be life itself that was planted here somehow from outer space or merely the building blocks for life. If the former, it cannot provide evidence for the false dichotomy as it is actually the subject of the first premise. In other words life does not provide an explanation or possibility of how at least the first life form in our universe came to be. If the latter, then life would still have to somehow arise from these seeded building blocks which, if it happened spontaneously, would still be abiogenesis, which was addressed in the premise. I any event, I guess I shot myself in the foot relative to this premise in my original post, as pointed out by Adrian.
Before I leave this topic alone, I would like to ask a question and make a few more comments.
My question is regarding “Burden of Proof”. I understand the concept with respect to the law. The law in the US is such that one is innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, the party who is accusing the other has the initial burden of proof (the initial burden of making the case that the accused party actually did that of which he is accused). Only after the accusing party can make a prima facie case does the burden shift to the accused. What I do not understand is how this concept is applied to these types of discussions. Who has the initial burden of proof? Are there recognized rules governing this concept as it applies to these types of discussions? Any help here would be appreciated as I really am trying to understand this.
My first comments are relative to Eilonnwy’s comment:
First: Nice catch! Second, I agree that you have not claimed there is absolutely no god in this post and will take you at your word regarding all other places. I guess I was confused by the fact that you refer to yourself as an atheist as I thought an atheist was one who believes there is absolutely no god. If you would like to shed some light on this relative to what you do think in this regard I would be interested.
My last comments are relative to Eilonnwy’s response to my comments on the Miller experiment:
All I can say here is that if you think that the Miller experiment is enough evidence to prove to you that abiogenesis is possible, your bar for evidence is really low. If I said that it is possible for me to produce designer pets, e.g., like Nickelodeon’s CatDog but real, would you believe me? If I said that I could prove to you that it is possible for me to do this and then offered evidence that I have isolated the DNA of cats and dogs, would I convince you that it was possible for me to do this? Would you now accept that this is possible? It seems like an analogous situation only I would have more evidence for my position than the Miller experiment provided for abiogenesis as the information to produce a cat and a dog is much more than just a few amino acids.
While I agree that my first premise was a false dichotomy I do not agree that Eilonnwy’s cite to the concept of panspermia demonstrates this. The “seeds” of this seem to either be life itself that was planted here somehow from outer space or merely the building blocks for life. If the former, it cannot provide evidence for the false dichotomy as it is actually the subject of the first premise. In other words life does not provide an explanation or possibility of how at least the first life form in our universe came to be. If the latter, then life would still have to somehow arise from these seeded building blocks which, if it happened spontaneously, would still be abiogenesis, which was addressed in the premise. I any event, I guess I shot myself in the foot relative to this premise in my original post, as pointed out by Adrian.
Before I leave this topic alone, I would like to ask a question and make a few more comments.
My question is regarding “Burden of Proof”. I understand the concept with respect to the law. The law in the US is such that one is innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, the party who is accusing the other has the initial burden of proof (the initial burden of making the case that the accused party actually did that of which he is accused). Only after the accusing party can make a prima facie case does the burden shift to the accused. What I do not understand is how this concept is applied to these types of discussions. Who has the initial burden of proof? Are there recognized rules governing this concept as it applies to these types of discussions? Any help here would be appreciated as I really am trying to understand this.
My first comments are relative to Eilonnwy’s comment:
(October 9, 2009 at 7:18 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: And as far as me arguing for the non-existence of God, nice hand waving there, but this is not what we're discussing and neither have I claimed there is absolutely no god.
First: Nice catch! Second, I agree that you have not claimed there is absolutely no god in this post and will take you at your word regarding all other places. I guess I was confused by the fact that you refer to yourself as an atheist as I thought an atheist was one who believes there is absolutely no god. If you would like to shed some light on this relative to what you do think in this regard I would be interested.
My last comments are relative to Eilonnwy’s response to my comments on the Miller experiment:
(October 9, 2009 at 7:18 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Big deal? You clearly do not understand science. It shows abiogenesis is possibly, which clearly refutes your claim that by no means can life come from non-life.
All I can say here is that if you think that the Miller experiment is enough evidence to prove to you that abiogenesis is possible, your bar for evidence is really low. If I said that it is possible for me to produce designer pets, e.g., like Nickelodeon’s CatDog but real, would you believe me? If I said that I could prove to you that it is possible for me to do this and then offered evidence that I have isolated the DNA of cats and dogs, would I convince you that it was possible for me to do this? Would you now accept that this is possible? It seems like an analogous situation only I would have more evidence for my position than the Miller experiment provided for abiogenesis as the information to produce a cat and a dog is much more than just a few amino acids.
