The God Topic

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 64
#61
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@ethang5
@zedvictor4
I'm not certain that science can be said to have an "exact opposite"....Fantasy maybe.....Even then it could be argued that elements of reasoning go into the production of fantasy.
When were going in the school the science was at the exact opposite of the womens abolition block and anyway we would making the stink bombs and then we throwed them into the womens abolition block.
#62
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,263
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Utanity
Do you mean "abolition" or do you mean ablution.

I dread to think what the "womens abolition block" might be.
#63
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Three things...
1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life

This neither removes the possibility of such an instance nor shows intelligence must be involved.
Agreed. But yet it is more in favor of intelligence being involved than not. So you have less reason to assume abiogenesis than I have to assume creation.
Not really, can you present the variables that allow us to determine if it's more likely that life began from non-life (something we have no example of true) or that it began from an eternal, living creator (that we have no example of either)? How do you determine which is more or less likely?


So the only example we have of intelligence hasn't been able to create life and this is evidence that life must require an intelligence to form?
Not must, but highly likely.  It is more reasonable to conclude that life comes from life than to assume abiogenesis when not only is there absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, but there is a ton of evidence for life only from prior life.
How do you determine this likelihood? If all life must come from life then don't we have an infinite regression? If not where did the first life come from? If we talk an eternal creator, then how do you show that's more probable than abiogenesis?

How does this prove the necessity of an intelligence at all? It really only seems to show what we can't do.
Why can't we do it? The science seems to indicate because abiogenesis is incorrect/impossible.

The first part of this is an argument from ignorance, the second is a pretty broad assumption. That we can't do something doesn't suggest that it is impossible. It may suggest our ideas on how abiogenesis is inaccurate, but that again only goes to show our shortcomings, it does nothing to prove nor disprove abiogenesis. You could equally argue that the fact that the only intelligent beings we know to exist being incapable of creating life would seem to indicate that intelligence can't create life. Both seem to be unsound and leave us having only the position that humans can't create life from scratch. Nothing in the argument suggests a reason to assume we can make a reasonable assumption as to how life came to begin.

3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.

I agree that life creates and manipulates information if you define information as
"What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
 Acceptable.

Then however I would ask why that requires an intelligence? What would prevent natural processes forming and manipulating such sequences? 
Only intelligence can produce a "particular" arrangement or sequence. Non-intelligence can only produce random arrangements or sequences.

Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive
Yet don't naturally occurring forces interacting produce the same results if all the variables are consistent? If the variables are usually consistent wouldn't we expect to see the same particular arrangement form? When we consistent particular results that would suggest that the variables hadn't changed, when we see different results that simply suggests that one of the variables had changed. In the first case we'd get a repeating pattern.

Again we derive information from sequences, nothing seems to suggest these sequences. Why must these sequences be formed by an intelligence?
Because only intelligence can produce, use and store "particular" information.

S.E.T.I. was based on this truism. Otherwise, we could never know if a thing like a spaceship or a novel was a product of intelligence of of random chance.

Though the reasons to conclude intelligence in crestion life are not ironclad, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume abiogenesis. None whatsoever.
SETI is quite selective in what it wants to see to my understanding. It's not so much about information, but about information in a form familiar to how we (the only known sample of intelligent life) produce information. Ultimately I would say there is no evidence for either position, everything presented seems highly inconclusive, with that conclusion accepting either claim as true seems unfounded.
#64
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Not really, can you present the variables that allow us to determine if it's more likely that life began from non-life (something we have no example of true) or that it began from an eternal, living creator (that we have no example of either)?
I said nothing about an eternal, living creator. And if we have no instance of life from non-life, why would that be one of our assumptions? The fact is that life does exist, and it has always come from prior life. How is that not more likely than life coming from non-life? Why are we even considering something that NEVER been known to happen over something we have seen happen in every known instance?

How do you determine which is more or less likely?
Life from life has happened in every known instance. Abiogenesis never. We don't even have a coherent theory of the mechanism of how such a thing would occur. You are asking to compare the likelihood of something that has NEVER been know to happen in all of human history, to something that has happened in every instance known to man! Does that sound reasonable to you? The thing which has NEVER happened is less likely than the thing which has ALWAYS happened.

If all life must come from life then don't we have an infinite regression? 
Slow down. Science goes one step at a time. Right now, all the evidence points to life from life. That may present problems in the future, but that is no reason to disallow what science is clearly pointing to. There is no logical scientific reason to even be considering abiogenesis.

If we talk an eternal creator, then how do you show that's more probable than abiogenesis?
Again, I've said nothing about a eternal creator. I'm talking about processes. Life from life or abiogenesis. Life from life happens in every known instance, abiogenesis never. Life from life is the more probable than abiogenesis.

The first part of this is an argument from ignorance, the second is a pretty broad assumption.
Untrue. That we cannot do something that has NEVER been known to happen is not from ignorance.  If we had no evidence of life from life either, you'd have a point, but even considering abiogenesis is absurd. There is no scientific or logical reason to do so. Why is it a consideration?

That we can't do something doesn't suggest that it is impossible.
I did not say it was impossible. I said life from life is by day more likely.

It may suggest our ideas on how abiogenesis is inaccurate, but that again only goes to show our shortcomings, it does nothing to prove nor disprove abiogenesis.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove abiogenesis any more than I'm trying to prove or disprove voodoo. I'm saying that you have absolutely no scientific reason to even bring up abiogenesis.

You could equally argue that the fact that the only intelligent beings we know to exist being incapable of creating life would seem to indicate that intelligence can't create life.
And I would agree. Both my argument and science indicate that life comes from life.

Both seem to be unsound and leave us having only the position that humans can't create life from scratch.
It isn't about humans. Life has never been known to start from scratch at any time anywhere. The evidence is obviously about life, not just humans or their ability to create life.

Nothing in the argument suggests a reason to assume we can make a reasonable assumption as to how life came to begin.
I find that to be amazing. You think we can make no assumption on how we have seen life come about in EVERY known instance, and should consider a thing that has NEVER been known to happen of equal likelihood! Is there anything else in science we treat this way?

Yet don't naturally occurring forces interacting produce the same results if all the variables are consistent?
Life isn't naturally occurring.

If the variables are usually consistent wouldn't we expect to see the same particular arrangement form? When we consistent particular results that would suggest that the variables hadn't changed, when we see different results that simply suggests that one of the variables had changed. In the first case we'd get a repeating pattern.
This is true for inanimate objects, isn't true for life.

SETI is quite selective in what it wants to see to my understanding.
As it should have been. SETI wants to be able to distinguish conscious intelligence from random naturally occurring forces.

It's not so much about information, but about information in a form familiar to how we (the only known sample of intelligent life) produce information.
Yes. We are conscious and intelligent. SETI assumed we would be able to distinguish information that was from a conscious intellect.

Ultimately I would say there is no evidence for either position, everything presented seems highly inconclusive, with that conclusion accepting either claim as true seems unfounded.
There is plenty of evidence of life from life. In fact, ALL evidence we have is for life from life. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. None at all. That you would equate a claim that has no evidence and has never been known to happen with a claim that occurs everyday all over the world is testimony to how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking today.