The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

I believe this an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, but I don't feel like explaining it, both because I'm lazy, and for other reasons. If you're going to introduce a cosmological argument in support of your argument from design, I request that you do so explicitly and support it on its merits.

I don't think there is any argument one can make that can't be labeled somehow or another. Perhaps we should call it the argument from labeling arguments argument and dismiss it that way. Besides simply labeling an argument in some fashion you have to demonstrate it actually is guilty of the alleged fallacy.

Perhaps I was unclear. I'm dismissing the charge that it is an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness at this time because I don't see it as sufficiently important to discuss at this time. (Though it may come up later.)

I am however saying that if you're using a cosmological argument as a support for another argument, you have to make that argument as well; I'm not concluding it's fallacious before you present your support for it, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't self-evidently true, and it's also quite controversial. Introducing a theory or argument over which there is or may be legitimate dispute as if it were accepted fact is simply not going to wash.

---

The Panspermia I was familiar with was the belief life here was planted by alien life. I stated the existence of life as a line of evidence in favor of what I believe. I didn't refer to whether it started here or when it began to exist.

Yes, true, I was skipping ahead a bit because I participated in the "Let's say that science proves that God exists" thread where you appeared to be making the same argument that you are now. Since you've made it explicit, I have to ask, in the interest of fairness, are the things you said in that other thread still true and valid and fair representations of your beliefs about these questions? Are there any parts to that argument that you made there which you specifically want excluded from consideration, and why? Does the current argument you are making differ in any substantial respect such that we should treat the two arguments as separate, and if so, in what way?

(I may also have a tendency to reply to arguments you haven't made, as I've studied arguments of this type at considerable length, and know where similar arguments have gone in the past. I apologize in advance for any unintentional attribution of arguments to you based on my inattention or failure to reliably separate the two.)

---

1. With regards to life coming from non-life, study the hypothesis of abiogenesis which evidence that it is possible. Your statement about life only coming from life is far from refutable.

In other words some day it may be a fact that life came from non-life through some process no one has figured out yet. When that day happens I will grant you its a line of evidence in favor of your belief. This is the irony, atheists claim they come to thier conclusion because supposedly that is the direction the available facts lead them; of course it isn't true but that is what they say. This is a case in point. The only verifiable, repeatable observable and proven method of producing life is from life. If one were led by the facts as atheists claim they are they should conclude (unless proven other wise) that life comes from life. Unfortunately that fact doesn't square with their apriori belief in the non-existence of God so they opt to disregard the proven fact and go for the theory instead.

I believe this is somewhat inaccurate, though it depends somewhat on your meaning, as it's ambiguous. I'd have to research it, but I believe that they have created wholly synthetic organisms out of raw materials. Granted, the organisms themselves are not all that impressive, and if I'm remembering the details correctly, the pattern was based off of existing biological patterns (with some novel variation thrown in). I'm not necessarily suggesting this refutes your point, even under specific interpretations; however, it does point out that your terminology is sufficiently ambiguous that it's not clear what you mean by "producing ... life from life" [or non-life]. (Both the term, "life" and "producing" are inadequately defined; I will accept that it has not been demonstrated that life which, granting evolution, could lead to human life has been demonstrated to come from non-life, but then your objection and your claim starts to become unhealthily narrowly focused, in addition to being an implicit claim about what can and cannot evolve into human life; how would you even know this?)

(As a side-note, I once worked at a biomedical firm that manufactured hyaluronic acid. Hyaluronic acid was originally extracted from chicken feet, and is used widely in dentistry and medicine. The founder of the company had invented a method of manufacturing completely synthetic hyaluronic acid, thus bypassing the dependence on living organisms. Granted, hyaluronic acid is not life, but it does point out that one needs to be careful about what we are referring to as the process of creating life, as well as the defining characteristics of the end product of the process. It's valid to say that hyaluronic acid comes from living animals. It's not valid to say that hyaluronic acid only comes from living animals.)

(ETA: This also strikes me as a rather absurd claim for you to make. By all rights, you claim to believe that life came from non-life, or not life as we know it. Are you suggesting that life isn't a direct result of the creative act of God? (He is quite assuredly not life as we know it. I'm primarily teasing, but given that you've attempted to disallow arguments or theories on the excuse that we don't really believe in the truth of them, here you are explicitly arguing that life doesn't come from non-life when it's quite obvious that you believe 200% that it does.)