Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

After thinking about this some more, I would say I really don't have any objection to proposals in abiogenesis along the lines of "life can spontaneously come from non-life with x materials and under y conditions".

That being said, you said some things in your last post that interest me.

If god played in the dirt with organic chemistry to create life, there would be evidence of that in the dirt, the chemistry, and life itself - and as such god would find itself firmly approachable by natural science through it;s demonstrable or falsifiable effects on the natural world.

And what exactly would that evidence be that God would leave? In other words, whatever evidence you do find, on what basis would you be able to classify the evidence as having been left by God or not left by God? How would you be able to tell the difference?

As an example.  If some believer proposed that there was a god that made bananas fall from trees - and we found that this was not the case, that- rather-  a biological process related of fruiting bodies caused this seperation - then The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified.  In common parlance, it simply doesn't exist.  He can protest that his god is supernatural, "other"..or that science is somehow limited to studying the banana...but none of this will change the fact that the Banana God is not where he said it was, nor does it do what he said it did.  He'll have to change his proposition to Some Other God - that ones DOA.

Has it? How? How can you tell the difference between a purely natural/biological result and a result that happens in nature (we observe it) that is caused by God? By what standard do you make that distinction? If you cannot make that distinction, how can you say "The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified"?

The only way to escape the horrible grasp of science ( ), in the end, is to propose a god that has absolutely no effect on the natural world - our world.

Or there is a God in control of all that happens in the world?

Is it your position that science is the only way to evaluate any claim?

[Brian37]

After thinking about this some more, I would say I really don't have any objection to proposals in abiogenesis along the lines of "life can spontaneously come from non-life with x materials and under y conditions".

That being said, you said some things in your last post that interest me.

If god played in the dirt with organic chemistry to create life, there would be evidence of that in the dirt, the chemistry, and life itself - and as such god would find itself firmly approachable by natural science through it;s demonstrable or falsifiable effects on the natural world.

And what exactly would that evidence be that God would leave? In other words, whatever evidence you do find, on what basis would you be able to classify the evidence as having been left by God or not left by God? How would you be able to tell the difference?

As an example.  If some believer proposed that there was a god that made bananas fall from trees - and we found that this was not the case, that- rather-  a biological process related of fruiting bodies caused this seperation - then The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified.  In common parlance, it simply doesn't exist.  He can protest that his god is supernatural, "other"..or that science is somehow limited to studying the banana...but none of this will change the fact that the Banana God is not where he said it was, nor does it do what he said it did.  He'll have to change his proposition to Some Other God - that ones DOA.

Has it? How? How can you tell the difference between a purely natural/biological result and a result that happens in nature (we observe it) that is caused by God? By what standard do you make that distinction? If you cannot make that distinction, how can you say "The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified"?

The only way to escape the horrible grasp of science ( ), in the end, is to propose a god that has absolutely no effect on the natural world - our world.

Or there is a God in control of all that happens in the world?

Is it your position that science is the only way to evaluate any claim?

OR humans merely desire the idea of a super cognition that looks like them and thinks like them.

Funny how claims of gods/deities always seem to reflect the societies of the majorities who claim them.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is no super cognition watching over us. That is merely a mere reflection of your own desires. 

But again, if you are claiming one exists, you are STILL STUCK WITH "WHICH ONE", because you are not the only human on the planet of 7 billion with a god claim. 

In stead of being intellectually frightened that this is it, maybe consider that by accepting this is it, you can value the finite time we have, instead of clinging to fictional utopias?

Although Jefferson was a deist and not an atheist even he said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear."

Maybe we have something to teach you.

[rjh4 is back]

but there is no super cognition watching over us.

Prove that claim.

That is merely a mere reflection of your own desires.

And this one, too.

Maybe we have something to teach you.

And you have. I have clearly learned some things here, as evidenced by my withdrawal of claims, and I am a better person because of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

And what exactly would that evidence be that God would leave? In other words, whatever evidence you do find, on what basis would you be able to classify the evidence as having been left by God or not left by God? How would you be able to tell the difference?

That's not my responsibility to determine - it would be based upon any given believers own claims.  In the Case of Banana God, the evidence of a god would be the bananas falling from the trees - but upon closer inspection that's just a product of a growth hormone.... so unless his god is "a growth hormone" -which, if you'll recall..it isn't......then he's flat out out wrong, his god has been falsified.  

Your god....btw, is said to have done a great many things that never happened.  It's on you to propose and revise whatever god claim you accept to provide confirmation or escape falsification.  IOW, not my baby, you feed it.  

Has it? How? How can you tell the difference between a purely natural/biological result and a result that happens in nature (we observe it) that is caused by God? By what standard do you make that distinction? If you cannot make that distinction, how can you say "The God Of Making Bananas Fall From Trees has been falsified"?

Because the bananas do not fall for the reason stated.  His proposition was factually incorrect and his conclusion logically false.  Its a growth hormone, not a god, that causes bananas to fall from trees.  If he wants to then say "Well, Banana God causes the growth hormone" - then..firstly, he should have said that to begin with..and secondly..we'll look into that.  Guess what we'll find?  

Or there is a God in control of all that happens in the world?

Is it your position that science is the only way to evaluate any claim?

Nope, but it is my position that reading off the apologist checklist is tedious and boring......as is playing whack a mole with god's of the gaps. Perhaps you would like to point to some specific thing that god controls? It shouldn;t be hard, since god controls everything. Did god, for example, make me shit on your comments up above and all throughout the thread? Was he trying to teach you something? Legit question...because unless god is my puppeteer...the proposition "perhaps there is a god in control of all that happens" is false on it's face, and so, The God In Control of Everything has been falsified. No science required, just a modest amount of rational thought. What do you think?



The value of science, btw, is in generating sound propositions for rational inference. That's the whole point - that's how it works and why we do it. Without sound propositions, even a valid argument is entirely uninformative.

[Brian37]

but there is no super cognition watching over us.

Prove that claim.

That is merely a mere reflection of your own desires.

And this one, too.

Maybe we have something to teach you.

And you have. I have clearly learned some things here, as evidenced by my withdrawal of claims, and I am a better person because of it.

[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with letting go of old mythology. And there is also nothing wrong with accepting this is it. I see life after I die as feeling the exact same 4 billion years ago when I also did not exist. 

I have also spent 16 years comparing all the worlds religions and finding out they all claim empathy and compassion motifs. But at the same time, I also know there has never been worldwide a 100% peaceful religion. That does not say to me humans are good or bad as individuals, it does say to me that their logic is bad, and that maybe our behaviors as a species are in us, and not a super natural battle between good and evil, just like you rightfully accept there is no Yoda vs Darth Vader.

It does not frighten me in the least to know my ride ends and my consciousness does not out live me. Nobody gives an afterlife concept to a bacteria or cockroach either. None of this is saying humans should be emotionless robots or harm other humans. All it means is that we don't need to assign anything about human behavior to being handed down to us by a divine source.

I still find good in life, and despite what someone might have sold you in the past, I also see most humans as good, even if I think their logic is crappy. 

You need to think about all the other god claims you rightfully reject. The only difference between you and I is I simply reject one more god claim than you do.

[rjh4 is back]

And what exactly would that evidence be that God would leave? In other words, whatever evidence you do find, on what basis would you be able to classify the evidence as having been left by God or not left by God? How would you be able to tell the difference?

That's not my responsibility to determine - it would be based upon any given believers own claims. 

I was asking you, not a believer. So you would be the only one who could answer. You were the one who made the claim: "If god played in the dirt with organic chemistry to create life, there would be evidence of that in the dirt, the chemistry, and life itself".

[The Grand Nudger]

Because, in my claim (I thought is was -our- claim, lol?) , god played in the dirt with organic chemistry.  Go outside, play in the dirt, with organic chemistry.  You'll find that evidence has been left of your having done so. 

Cretinists, and you as well, make precisely this claim when they refer to "probabilistic objections".  That, the act of something having played in the dirt with organic chemistry to produce life is beyond the remit of pure happenstance.  This would be evidence of some agent - if it were true, and we would see that in our genes - as an unbroken line of heredity from that moment to this moment.  Unfortunately ( for cretinists, anyway), it's not. Let's not have an infantile back and forth about shirking the burden of proof - I don't claim a god, I only point out that those who do shoulder that burden, and however they answer that will determine what sort of evidence we could expect. Banana God leaves banana evidence, or should...Gene God leaves genetic evidence, or should.

Did you have any comments on the rest of my post? I'd just like to be sure that were still understanding each other...because I have a habit of putting blocks on top of previous blocks. I was forced to play with legos, alot, as a child - part of a sick secular social experiment to identify and categorize the ubermensch.

[rjh4 is back]

Because, in my claim (I thought is was -our- claim, lol?) , god played in the dirt with organic chemistry.  Go outside, play in the dirt, with organic chemistry.  You'll find that evidence has been left of your having done so. 

Cretinists, and you as well, make precisely this claim when they refer to "probabilistic objections".  That, the act of something having played in the dirt with organic chemistry to produce life is beyond the remit of pure happenstance.  This would be evidence of some agent - if it were true, and we would see that in our genes - as an unbroken line of heredity from that moment to this moment.  Unfortunately ( for cretinists, anyway), it's not.  Let's not have an infantile back and forth about shirking the burden of proof - I don't claim a god, I only point out that those who do shoulder that burden, and however they answer that will determine what sort of evidence we could expect.  Banana God leaves banana evidence, or should...Gene God leaves genetic evidence, or should.

But none of this explains how you would be able to discern the difference. Is it rational to say you could test any proposed god without putting forth any standard for determining what evidence you would accept as evidence for and evidence against the proposition? Is it rational to say simply that one would know?

As to the probabilistic objections...didn't I withdraw mine!

Did you have any comments on the rest of my post?  I'd just like to be sure that were still understanding each other...because I have a habit of putting blocks on top of previous blocks.  I was forced to play with legos, alot, as a child - part of a sick secular social experiment to identify and categorize the ubermensch.  

No...no other comments. I think we are understanding each other.

P.S. We still have a bazillion Legos at my house from when my kids were small. I wonder if there is an aftermarket for them.

[The Grand Nudger]

But none of this explains how you would be able to discern the difference. Is it rational to say you could test any proposed god without putting forth any standard for determining what evidence you would accept as evidence for and evidence against the proposition? Is it rational to say simply that one would know?

As to the probabilistic objections...didn't I withdraw mine!

The difference would be discernible in the specifics of their claim.  For example, if they asserted that it would be improbable to the point of impossibility that anything other than god played in the dirt, at least that much -should- be in evidence...but it is not.  Thus the necessary god who played in the dirt is falsified.  It is not necessary.  Come up with some other god, some other proposition.  Perhaps some other god exists, but not -that- god. Rinse and repeat with the next god.

An unnecessary god who maybe played in the dirt in ways indistinguishable from pure chance.  That's what your retraction leaves us.  Thing is, both of us know that you wont be satisfied with such a god and that you cannot help but propos a god that -is- distinguioshable from random this or thats. Perhaps not here, but somewhere, and in that somwhere, we will simply do this assessment again and find your god proposal demonstrably false in it's own specifics. If you ever do manage to come up with an unfalsifiable god, it would be the most unfortunate event for that god...since an unfalsifiable god, amusingly, is also an unconfirmable god. A god indistinguishable....from no god. Some god that would be, eh?

Suppose that there were such a god..who..sometimes, maybe, makes stuff that can be made at random by nothing in particular, and who...when he does deign to make stuff..makes it in such a way that no evidence thereof is left behind? Do you imagine people would flock to his temple? Is this -your- god? "I made this spoon, maybe, sure anyone can make a spoon and it sure looks like I didn;t make this one.....but I made this one, now bow or burn!"

Probably not, right>?

No...no other comments. I think we are understanding each other.

P.S. We still have a bazillion Legos at my house from when my kids were small. I wonder if there is an aftermarket for them.

Good, good.  So, uh, do you have like a paypal or something, because I'd buy them at steep discount for my own kids. I want to buy a 3d printer to make legos, this christmas, actually. I suppose it would be cheaper to get a pelleted form vacuum press, and I have the experience to run it...but I totally want a printer...so...... What I';m saying is this...you have a very short window to sell me your legos before I start to think that maybe I should charge -you- for the postage and waste disposal.....

[rjh4 is back]

The difference would be discernible in the specifics of their claim.  For example, if they asserted that it would be improbable to the point of impossibility that anything other than god played in the dirt, at least that much -should- be in evidence...but it is not.  Thus the necessary god who played in the dirt is falsified.  It is not necessary.  Come up with some other god, some other proposition.  Perhaps some other god exists, but not -that- god.  Rinse and repeat with the next god.

An unnecessary god who maybe played in the dirt in ways indistinguishable from pure chance.  That's what your retraction leaves us.  Thing is, both of us know that you wont be satisfied with such a god and that you cannot help but propos a god that -is- distinguioshable from random this or thats.  Perhaps not here, but somewhere, and in that somwhere, we will simply do this assessment again and find your god proposal demonstrably false in it's own specifics.  If you ever do manage to come up with an unfalsifiable god, it would be the most unfortunate event for that god...since an unfalsifiable god, amusingly, is also an unconfirmable god.  A god indistinguishable....from no god.  Some god that would be, eh?  

Suppose that there were such a god..who..sometimes, maybe, makes stuff that can be made at random by nothing in particular, and who...when he does deign to make stuff..makes it in such a way that no evidence thereof is left behind?  Do you imagine people would flock to his temple?  Is this -your- god?  "I made this spoon, maybe, sure anyone can make a spoon and it sure looks like I didn;t make this one.....but I made this one, now bow or burn!"

Probably not, right>?

Interesting...but I still think you are missing my point....or maybe I am still missing something.

Let me ask this (I am trying really hard to understand your point of view). We live in a universe that we observe. You have come to the conclusion (at least I think), not God. Did you come to that as a presupposition or based on evidence or lack thereof?

Good, good.  So, uh, do you have like a paypal or something, because I'd buy them at steep discount for my own kids.  I want to buy a 3d printer to make legos, this christmas, actually.  I suppose it would be cheaper to get a pelleted form vacuum press, and I have the experience to run it...but I totally want a printer...so......  What I';m saying is this...you have a very short window to sell me your legos before I start to think that maybe I should charge -you- for the postage and waste disposal.....

Well...I would get rid of them, but my wife wants to keep them around for the grandchildren (4 so far). So...I guess you get to purchase a shiny new 3d printer.  I saw one at Sam's Club a while back. I think it was 800 or so and then, of course, you have to but the polymer too. Hopefully, they are cheaper now.