Arguments with atheists usually end up as arguments over evolution, but an atheist arguing evolution as a defense of atheism is like a Christian arguing the existence of Jerusalem as a defense for God. It is totally irrelevant.
Evolution can be true and God can still exist. He may not be the Christian God, but atheism isn’t about arguing against the Christian God. It is about arguing against all Gods.
Atheists have two philosophical/scientific problems. One is how to get something out of nothing, and the other is how to get life from non-life. I suppose they can get around the first by saying that something i.e. energy/matter has always existed. The first cause argument seems to demand that something has to have existed eternally, and that something has to be either God or energy.
As for the second, as far as I know, there are no experiments that show how one can get a living cell from non-living matter. And as far as I know, without that first cell life as we know it would not exist. So the question is, does it take an intelligent being to create that first cell? If so, then some manner of God must exist. If not, then it is possible, though not necessary, that there is no God.
It is conceivable that even if it is possible to get that first cell without God there nonetheless can still be a God. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that it happened. In addition, life coming spontaneously from non-life does not disprove God. It only allows for the possibility of no God.
We all know that intelligent beings can create. We see it every day. What we don’t know is whether life (a living cell) can come from non-life without an intelligent being.
Atheists argue that their philosophy is based upon observable evidence, and belief in God is based solely upon faith, which they define as wishful thinking with no observable evidence. On the contrary, what we see every day (intelligent beings creating) shows us that it is possible that a super intelligent being could have created the first cell if not more. On the other hand, since we have never seen life (a single cell) arise spontaneously, then the foundation of atheism is based on faith, which is defined here as wishful thinking without any observable evidence.
12 comments:
Heya.
I'd agree that even if a cell or life were shown to arise from non-life (certainly if it took place in a laboratory experiment) it would have no bearing on the existence of God. Even if we were to witness this happening "spontaneously", I see no more reason to assume that God was not involved than to assume God was not involved in permitting or orchestrating the otherwise mundane events of day to day life.
So the only quibble I'd have with you is that I don't think recreating a cell in the lab, or life from non-life, means that this took place 'without God'. I'd also agree that evolution poses no threat to God's existence. (In fact, it may actually provide evidence or a good reason to believe in design - Michael Denton, Simon Conway Morris, and others have been speculating about this.) What's more, the atheist would have to say that something (Energy? Matter) not only existed eternally, but did not itself comprise a consciousness (The eastern orthodox views on panentheism come to mind). So atheism entails faith regardless - science will not save them. It cannot in principle.
By the way, Gary, I used to listen to your preaching out in front of Willard back around the late 1990s/early 2000s. A lot of what you said stayed with me and percolated, and I have little doubt that what you said helped me maintain my faith in PSU and beyond.
A few points I feel need to be made.
First let me kick off by pointing out that the burden of proof will always lie on the person making the positive claim -- you. Atheists do not have to disprove any point that you haven't already proven. I should also point out that a "god of the gaps" theory so to speak is not valid proof; you cannot say "we have no other explanation for X, therefore Y," but rather you must PROVE that Y is the explanation for X on its own. "God exists because people can't explain how life got here" is only as valid as "Zeus exists because nobody can yet explain lightening."
Now onto your arguments:
"Atheists have two philosophical/scientific problems. One is how to get something out of nothing, and the other is how to get life from non-life. "
Atheists do not bear the burden of explaining how something came from nothing; that is the believers' problem. Atheists (at least in general) claim that matter and energy have existed in some form forever. It is the christians who believe that this matter came from nothing, and thus they are required to PROVE their "first cause" argument.
"As for the second, as far as I know, there are no experiments that show how one can get a living cell from non-living matter."
Well your ignorance is not a valid argument.
Jack W. Szostak (in case you're unaware, he got his BS in biology at age 19 from McGill University, got a PHD from Cornell in biochemistry and then moved to Harvard to start his own lab), has experimentally proven that from nonliving matter, we can produce life. Here are some links.
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Mansy_et_al_Nature_2008.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w
While it is still conceivable that there exists a god, despite this evidence, the burden of proof still lies on you. The person asserting god's existence must provide evidence for their claim, or the claim can be adequately refuted without evidence. Combine this with Occam's Razor. Although, yes, the notion that god exists is still POSSIBLY correct, it is at this point in time invariably irrational, given the lack of evidence for his existence.
Unfortunately for Mr Flamingmonkey, those laboratory experiments didn't really prove anything other than a cell can be created by forcing it together in laboratory conditions—hardly in a natural environment left to chance. In order to create and maintain life, a large quantity of molecules have to arrange themselves in the proper manner (absolute minimum DNA base pairs is 100,000...most simple bacteria have around 200,000) and they also have to have the coding in order to maintain life. It has to know how to eat, breath, and reproduce, etc. You can't just throw a bunch of amino acids together and get viable life. The odds are actually mindboggling.
Of course, the evolutionist's response is a fallacy of logic—"well, it happened, so it must have been possible!" It's very easy to start out with a conclusion and try to make your evidence fit it!
That is deductive reasoning and cannot pertain to the proper scientific method of inductive reasoning. Historical sciences are at a conflict with the scientific method anyway, as they cannot test their theories and repeat them! So believe in historical "science" is a religion of sorts...a popular opinion based on faith of some sort that your evidence is true and leads you to a proper conclusion and not a delusion! There are many accounts of "science" throughout history where they had their evidence, but arrived at the most insanely wrong conclusions! Like the Earth-centric system. Sure, the planets were moving funny, but they had it aaaaaall figured out, didn't they?
They didn't force cells together in laboratory conditions.
The experiment was set up to emulate the natural conditions in hydrothermal vents in the ocean. We brought those conditions to the lab in order to observe what happened under them, and guess what? Protocells spontaneously formed.
They didn't just "throw a bunch of amino acids together" either. The molecules arranged themselves based on very simple chemical principles. They were not just ordered randomly. FYI, electrons don't just randomly decide where to be. Electrons naturally tend toward their lowest energy state. Likewise, intermolecular interactions are not random in any sense of the word.
Yeah, if you actually read any of the links I posted, you'd understand.
Step one: Lipid chains form in the hydrothermal vents. We've known this for a long time. They're just hydrocarbons, and there's nothing really complex about these kind of formations.
Step two: Hydrogen bonds between the lipid chains form a semi-permiable proto-membrane. The lipid chains will naturally move to their most stable state, which is a sphere of lipids connected through hydrogen bonds between them.
Step three: Monomers can easily pass through the membrane, but polymers cannot. In hot environments, monomers will self-polymerize and when this happens inside of the membrane, then the polymers are stuck inside of the protocell.
Step Four: When the cell gets moved by mechanical forces (waves, or currents) to a colder location, the polymers will naturally replicate, again due to the presence of other monomers in the cell and basic hydrogen bonding principles. Enzymes are NOT required for this to happen.
Step Five: The presence of polymers inside the protocell increases its osmotic pressure, and it expands. When two cells contact each other, the one with more pressure is able to fuse with the smaller one, and increase the size of its membrane -- they EAT each other. At a basic level, the one with the most genetic material wins. This begins the competitive cycle of evolution.
Step six: When a cell gets too big, mechanical forces such as waves will break it up into two or more pieces, and with multiple copies of the same genetic code in the protocell, this is primitive reproduction.
This has been observed now. These molecules arranged themselves into competition driven protocells ON THEIR OWN. They were not engineered together.
I'm not sure that you completely understand the difference between "law," "fact," "theory," "hypothesis," or any other scientific terms, but now it is a scientific fact that under natural conditions, life can form on its own.
So now, it us up to you creationists to try to bastardize the term "fact," just like you've bastardized the word "theory."
If basic life materials organize themselves as this experiment seems to prove. Wouldn't this point to inherent intelligence within matter it's self? Where does such intelligence and desire for life come from? Rationally, what does such "behavior" on the part of raw materials indicate?
I would posit - Telos (meaning/goal)
and if Telos, then there must be Logos - (the logic behind existence, and totally interconnected with the Telos)
Man may deny the Telos of his being, but apparently matter does not.
It sickens me how you'll twist words and ideas to suit your cause. Turn off your mouth, and use your brain for a minute.
"If basic life materials organize themselves as this experiment seems to prove. Wouldn't this point to inherent intelligence within matter it's self?"
No. Let me reiterate: no.
Does a rock roll to the bottom of the hill because it is intelligent? Does the rock understand that gravity "wants" it to go to the bottom of the hill, and does the rock "choose" to go to the bottom of the hill because it is intelligently following the laws of gravity.
No. The rock rolls to the bottom of the hill because it has the lowest amount of potential energy at the bottom of the hill. It is less stable on top of the hill, because it is at a higher energy state.
Likewise, the hydrocarbons in the experiment cited will tend towards a spherical membrane because it is their lowest energy-state.
There is no intelligence behind the process. Our ability as humans to understand the process intelligently does not mean that the hydrocarbons undergoing the process are intelligent any more than it means the rock falling down the hill is intelligent.
This is very basic logic, here. Please stop playing dumb.
And somehow, only the human mind is outside this whole non-intelligent process? How convenient.
1) The laws of the physical universe create us
2)There is no intelligence involved
3)These laws, by pure chance, create intelligence
4) Intelligence proclaims its self to be outside the very laws which created it.
explain please.
People see what they choose to see, my friend. If you haven't figured that much out, well, I don't what to tell you. I am no more an idiot believing there is meaning and intelligence in matter than you are idiot believing that there is no intelligence in it.
What makes you so sure that rocks are not the true masters of this world? Please, don't appeal to logic.
chance = logic - explain.
Everything happened by chance yet somehow what you have to say is logical and meaningful....hmmm
Instinct (according to you) got living things, including us humans, where we are. Yet every great achievement a human makes is at the expense of instinct.
How many times has instinct suggested that you don't get out of bed in the morning, but your mind and will knew better.
Your intelligence is able to force your body to do difficult and unpleasant things in order to accomplish something that is it's will.
If we were simply the products of the physical world and its laws, we would never imagine ourselves more wise than our own bodies.
If mindless instinct got us this far, which is pretty amazing, if true, then we should trust the impulses of nature (our bodies)more than the 'reason' of our minds, since it is not reason or intelligence that created us but impulsive natural occurrences.
But then it would be wrong to learn anything, to love and care for anyone one but your self, it would be nearly impossible to hold a job or any responsible position. As we know, the impulses of our body often lead to nothing but disaster. That is, if obeyed in every instance.
Civilization was built by mankind going against instinct.
Now, you could say "what about the human instinct to explore and discover and ask questions"
Hold on a minute, if human thinking and ability to question is simply another instinct....well...what's the point in anything that you and I have ever said...
is my instinct arguing with yours?????????????
"How could it be that an idiotic universe has produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than it's self" -
bye for now.
Wow, I don't even know where to start trying to decipher your incoherent ramblings.
-- "And somehow, only the human mind is outside this whole non-intelligent process? How convenient."
Care to elaborate? Could you suggest an experiment that didn't involve human observation? If an intelligent observer to our experiment proves the experiment's own intelligence, then again every inanimate object somehow becomes "intelligent."
The point is as absurd as is claiming that every gravitational experiment is flawed because a human mind resides outside the whole non-intelligent process.
"Gravity is a lie; I believe in Intelligent Falling," right?
"1) The laws of the physical universe create us
2)There is no intelligence involved
3)These laws, by pure chance, create intelligence"
There's where you're mistaken. Natural selection is not pure chance any more than the rock rolling to the BOTTOM of the hill rather than the top of the hill is pure chance. There are non-intelligent natural forces that drive the process; gravity drives the rock down the hill and selective competition drives self-replicating matter towards a niche it can survive more effectively in.
If you believe in gravity, then you also believe in non-intelligent forces, so don't even try the entire "non-intelligence cannot drive a force" bullshit.
"4) Intelligence proclaims its self to be outside the very laws which created it.
explain please."
You're the one who needs to do some explaining there. When did I ever claim that my own intelligence was outside of the laws of physics?
"People see what they choose to see, my friend. If you haven't figured that much out, well, I don't what to tell you. I am no more an idiot believing there is meaning and intelligence in matter than you are idiot believing that there is no intelligence in it. "
People tend to choose what they choose to see, but that doesn't make all ideas equal. The geocentric model of the universe is not just as good an idea as the heliocentric model of the universe.
"What makes you so sure that rocks are not the true masters of this world? Please, don't appeal to logic.
chance = logic - explain."
Please don't appeal to logic? Are you really trying to logically disprove the validity of logic? If you don't value logic, you should just stop responding now. An argument goes nowhere when one person plugs his ears and refuses to listen to reason.
"Everything happened by chance yet somehow what you have to say is logical and meaningful....hmmm"
Who said everything happened by chance? Please stop with the straw-mans and quote me directly if you want to address something I said.
"Instinct (according to you) got living things, including us humans, where we are. Yet every great achievement a human makes is at the expense of instinct. "
When and where did I say or imply that? I implied that genetic traits which will help an organism survive in its given niche will become more common in a given species over time. Intelligence is just as much a genetic trait as instinct is.
"How could it be that an idiotic universe has produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than it's self"
Your inability to understand something doesn't make it impossible, or even improbable. Either provide a written out logical argument (that means full of objective premises and conclusions) for why the universe MUST have been intelligent in order to give rise to intelligence, or stop pretending to know what you're talking about.
My collection of cells disagrees with yours.
and they admit they have chosen confusing terms> will modify.
Okay. I promise I will dispense with the straw man. Because honestly, there's nothing more annoying than "straw man tactic" and I admit my guilt, my apologies.
First of all, I realize that I have implied something I did not intend to.
I do NOT believe matter is intelligent in the same way human beings are intelligent. It does not posses consciousness, or human like self awareness.
What I intended to convey was:
the idea that the way matter acts in the environment is an indication that intelligence is involved, upon, within, throughout. Not that matter is it's self that intelligence, but only a reflection of intelligence.
I used words like "inherent" which was a bad choice, as it implied something else.
When you say things like:
"These molecules arranged themselves into competition driven protocells ON THEIR OWN."
This is simply physicals laws at work, right?
To me it seems that the molecules already "know" how to "behave" when put into these circumstances.
Again, I realize they don't "know" in the way we humans know things, rather, they are programmed to behave in a consistent way in particular conditions.
When things "arrange themselves" this could imply a program could it not?
When I hear:
"The lipid chains will naturally move to their most stable state, which is a sphere of lipids connected through hydrogen bonds between them"
My interpretation of these events is intelligence, beauty, symmetry.
It's up to us to infer meaning or lack thereof, from the sensory data that we are exposed to.
We could simply state the facts and not infer any meaning.
Again my apologies for my previous rantings, I hope I am making my point clearly now. It's really basic actually: I believe in God and I look at the world through the lens of that assumption.
The facts don't prove anything, do they? It's up to us to do the interpreting.
(please feel free to point out inconsistencies, if you wish)
You've made your point clear, but it's none the more valid.
First of all, I need to point out that your "interpolation" as you call it (it's actually quite far beyond extrapolation, since it's not even a relevant part of the experiment cited, let alone a data-point within our interval of testing) is unsupported. The conclusion of this experiment was simply that a nonliving group of molecules can spontaneously form into a protocell that obeys the definition of life. That's all. God need not exist for these results to have happened.
If you want to interpret your own meaning, that's fine. Just don't claim that it has been scientifically demonstrated.
Facts are facts, and theories are theories. That life can come from non-life is a scientifically demonstrated fact. A theory is an explanation of a set of all relevant facts. If you want to scientifically prove god, you need to first create a clear definition of god, then demonstrate every aspect of that definition through experimentation.
In layman's terms, saying "god is the sense of order in the universe demonstrated through physical laws," does not prove that god is any sort of sentient being at all. It doesn't prove that god is anything other than some arbitrary abstraction which you happened to define as the consistency of physical laws.
That's point number one. Point number two is that this entire discussion has completely digressed from the original thread.
"As for the second, as far as I know, there are no experiments that show how one can get a living cell from non-living matter. And as far as I know, without that first cell life as we know it would not exist."
-Gary
The point was not what personal, and undemonstrated ideas that one might form when a person encounters the fact that life can indeed come from non-life. The point was to educate someone with a blatant ignorance of modern scientific knowledge. I don't think that we should live in a world where somebody can say "I don't know of any experiments that show how one can get a living cell from non-living matter" and not get immediately and harshly corrected for being ignorant.
Ignorance isn't a crime, but it's extremely pretentious for someone with no qualifications and no up-to-date knowledge on biology to walk around as if he's an expert on the subject.
Dear FlamingMonkey,
Thank you for your response.
It is not possible to prove God's existence scientifically. I would only say that it is possible see science in a way that contributes to one's faith (or not).
One can however use reason in favor of the argument...seeing as people reason differently.
What kind of discussion is really possible between Atheists and believers?
Personally, I think there probably is much that could be discussed, if we stopped rebutting each other's mindless slogans and had real discussion.
Here a couple of questions I would be interested in hearing your opinion on:
1) Does Science belong to everyone?
2) Millions of people believe in the bible and disagree with one another and yet use the same words to back up their views. Is not sensory data of any kind subject to this problem? This would include science.
I will give you an example of what I mean from this theoretical situation:
One person says "I looked at the stars the other night and I concluded, there must be a God"
Another says "I looked at the stars the other night and concluded, there must be no God"
Each agrees on the fact that there are stars and they are impressive but draws a differing conclusion. The FACT of the stars doesn't prove either conclusion to be a fact. Would you agree?
All for now...
Post a Comment