The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

so how do you suppose life begin on earth?

We don't know that yet.

[ManMachine]

Lol... single celled organisms coming into existence through natural selective processes

That doesn't make any sense. Selection implies picking from a pre-existing set. Natural selective processes wouldn't bring anything into existence, they'd simply select pre-existing objects.

You would probably do well to read some popular science articles on the theory of evolution, they will give you a broad overview in language that will be palatable for you. The emergence of single cell life and its subsequent evolution into complex life forms is not a simple one-step process that can be encapsulated in one word.

Adopting a semantic approach is somewhat disingenuous as the word does not determine the process. You could call it 'colin" for all it matters, the process would still carry on the way it has for millions of years.

There are more accurate words that could be employed to describe the process you are discussing, 'filtering', 'sieveing', 'sifting' all describe the process better than the word 'selection', but even these are not exact in isolation.



MM

[genkaus]

You would probably do well to read some popular science articles on the theory of evolution, they will give you a broad overview in language that will be palatable for you. The emergence of single cell life and its subsequent evolution into complex life forms is not a simple one-step process that can be encapsulated in one word.

Perhaps you should tell that to my opponent. He's the one trying to encapsulate it into a one phrase.

Adopting a semantic approach is somewhat disingenuous as the word does not determine the process. You could call it 'colin" for all it matters, the process would still carry on the way it has for millions of years.

Now that is something that would be disingenuous. Words are what we use to label and identify concepts. A semantic approach is necessary to ensure correct identification - otherwise we'd have no idea whether we are discussing the same topic or not.

There are more accurate words that could be employed to describe the process you are discussing, 'filtering', 'sieveing', 'sifting' all describe the process better than the word 'selection', but even these are not exact in isolation.

Then let him employ those and I'd respond in kind.

[EGross]

so how do you suppose life begin on earth?

When a mommy and daddy love each other very much...

[ManMachine]

Adopting a semantic approach is somewhat disingenuous as the word does not determine the process. You could call it 'colin" for all it matters, the process would still carry on the way it has for millions of years.

Now that is something that would be disingenuous. Words are what we use to label and identify concepts. A semantic approach is necessary to ensure correct identification - otherwise we'd have no idea whether we are discussing the same topic or not.

My point is it doesn't matter what we call the process, it will still be the same thing that it is. Our choice of label serves only us not the thing itself.

While you are quite right in saying 'selection' can occur only from a 'pre-existing set', you have used a narrow semantic definition to obfuscate the fact that what this brings into existence a change in conditions. It is this change in conditions that becomes the new initiation point for the next change in the system, and so on, each individual occurance having a microscopic but essential impact on the overall process.

There are more accurate words that could be employed to describe the process you are discussing, 'filtering', 'sieveing', 'sifting' all describe the process better than the word 'selection', but even these are not exact in isolation.

Then let him employ those and I'd respond in kind.

That is one approach but then you are argueing the person and not the point.

I'd agree that 'natural selection' is probably not the best use of phrase to describe the continually changing conditions that ultimately gave rise to the fundamental chemical compositions of what we call 'life', and you could have pointed out that 'natural selection' is a phrase used frequently for the evolutionary process of life forms and not the emergence of life from inorganic chemistry, but it's not nonsensical.

MM

[genkaus]

My point is it doesn't matter what we call the process, it will still be the same thing that it is. Our choice of label serves only us not the thing itself.

And my point is that it is precisely because the choice of label serves us that it does matter. Without a label used consistently it'd be impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

While you are quite right in saying 'selection' can occur only from a 'pre-existing set', you have used a narrow semantic definition to obfuscate the fact that what this brings into existence a change in conditions. It is this change in conditions that becomes the new initiation point for the next change in the system, and so on, each individual occurance having a microscopic but essential impact on the overall process.

I'm using the narrow semantic definition to root out the possibility of obfuscation. In scientific terms, the phrase natural selection is used describe an aspect of evolutionary process which in turn applies to changes in living entities over time. What it does not apply to is the origin of life. That the term was used as a label for that particular process is not a whim - it makes semantic sense as even if you don't know anything about it, you still can get an idea of what it'd mean based what those words themselves mean. Now, either my opponent is actually ignorant of what the term means - in which case a simple semantic argument suffices to indicate where he might be wrong or he is being deliberately deceptive - in which case no amount of argument would matter.

That is one approach but then you are argueing the person and not the point.

That's because I don't see a point to be argued.

I'd agree that 'natural selection' is probably not the best use of phrase to describe the continually changing conditions that ultimately gave rise to the fundamental chemical compositions of what we call 'life', and you could have pointed out that 'natural selection' is a phrase used frequently for the evolutionary process of life forms and not the emergence of life from inorganic chemistry, but it's not nonsensical.

Now this is interesting. Your statement regarding the continually changing conditions that give rise to chemical compositions of life seems to imply that you know more the origin of life than subscribing to a simple hypothesis. Your statement about how the term 'natural selection' may be applicable to that also indicates a certain understanding of the case. Tell me more.

[i win you lose.com]

Okay genkaus now that we can put away semantics and get on with the argument how do you explain the probability of natural filtering verses Borels law of mathematical probability?

[ManMachine]

Now this is interesting. Your statement regarding the continually changing conditions that give rise to chemical compositions of life seems to imply that you know more the origin of life than subscribing to a simple hypothesis. Your statement about how the term 'natural selection' may be applicable to that also indicates a certain understanding of the case. Tell me more.

With the exception of Panspermia all generally accepted theories of abiogenisis involve the creation of amino acids by one process or another (perhaps more than one). All I'm trying to suggest is while the term 'natural selection' does have a specific meaning in evolutionary biology (that isn't relevant to the point), as an hypothesis it is not out of place in this debate. It would mean examining our definition of 'life', which is not a bad thing at all - perhaps that's the point.


MM

[i win you lose.com]

Okay genkaus now that we can put away semantics and get on with the argument how do you explain the probability of natural filtering verses Borels law of mathematical probability?

Genkaus?

[Mister Agenda]

I don't just lack belief in Santa if Santa is defined as a personal agent who deliveries presents world wide on Christmas eve I disbelieve it and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Absolutely, but if Santa were defended by an apologist, the definition would be changed to something like 'a non-detectable being who sometimes delivers presents on Christmas in an undetectable way, and is the reason why sometimes there are presents labeled 'from Santa' that no one knows the provenance of'. After all, God used to be the guy who floods worlds and stops the sun and parts seas so his chosen people can have a shortcut; but look at him now.

No the whole point of this post is to list facts that support my contention. Not what I don't know but what is well known.

OK, but you cited other's lack of an explanation as supporting yours, that's pretty much the essence of the fallacy, that if someone else doesn't know something, you're more likely to be right just because you have an explanation. Explanations have to stand or fall on their own merits.

At one point in my life I was a confirmed atheist or at least a very content agnostic. Again I don't attend any church and I'm not promoting any religion. It wasn't just the evidence for theism that led me to subscribe to it. I found to be an atheist is to substitute Goddidit for Naturedidit and I have no better reason to think nature could do it.

Fair enough. I don't consider being an atheist to be a virtue...I consider being a rational/scientific skeptic to be a virtue, though, which is basically the idea that one's beliefs should be proportional to the evidence for them. I realize that taking that position doesn't universally lead to atheism.

Thats a reasonable position.

Thanks!

You're already off the rails. A theory is not a fact.

A theory is made of facts, and explains them. The theory explains the fact of the evidence that the universe was once very small and rapidly got very big.

No the point was for atheism to be true there is no God nothing needs to exist. For there to be people who don't believe God exists then yes people need to exist.

If there's a God, the only thing that needs to exist is God, a universe is optional. This just isn't a good line of argumentation.

Thats assuming the laws of physics and nature are necessary.

I'm not assuming they're necessary. I'm just not assuming they're NOT necessary, which is what you have to do to assert that happenstance and intention as the only options.

Even supposing that if a universe exists it has to have the laws of nature we observe (which isn't a fact) according to atheism there was no who engineered and designed the universe to be as it is. If trees in our observation instead of falling down fell up then that would be a law of nature.

There is no 'according to atheism' any more than there is an 'according to theism'. And yes, we would observe trees falling up if that was a law of nature, although there's no good reason to suppose that could be a law of nature. With only one universe to observe it's hard to make valid claims that another universe could be wildly different from our own: our universe is the only one we know for sure is possible.

Unless your suggesting that the laws of nature aren't just what we happen to observe but in fact they really are laws written into the fabric of nature but wouldn't that be rather antithetical to the philosophy of atheism?

There is no 'philosophy of atheism', just as there's no 'philosophy of theism'. They are both single-topic opinions. And you're conflating laws of nature with written laws. Laws of nature are descriptions of how the universe behaves in certain circumstances that are reliable.

Because what except a transcendent agent could dictate how nature behaves?

Even if I could think of no alternative, you'd only be left with an argument from ignorance: 'you don't know so I must be right'. But I think you're unnecessarily multiplying entities, like invoking undetectable voltage fairies as an explanation for current. It is possible that you're necessarily multiplying entities--that there does have to be a transcendant agent to determine what a universe's laws must be, but I note that 'explanation' can be invoked just as readily to 'explain' why universes would have radically different laws if that turns out to be the case. An explanation that suffices no matter what the actual case is and futhermore doesn't involve any explication of the mechanisms involved doesn't seem like a real explanation at all to me. Not to mention if the universe being the way it is requires a transcendant agent, surely the transcendant agent being the way it is would require a more transcendant agent, unless you're going with special pleading; which wouldn't make you wrong, it just means that if you're right, it's by coincidence. Oh, and as an alternative to a transcendant agent if universes must be much the same, I offer 1) the laws of the universe are a brute fact, much as a transendant agent would have to be; or 2) the laws of the universe are what they are because that's what they must be in the absence of forces dictating that they must be different, similar to the way virtual particles come into existence essentially because there's no law of nature that says they can't.