Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Earth Sky: How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Paul Scott Anderson writes:

We know that life originated on Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. But we still don’t understand exactly how life came to be. Likewise, we know little to nothing about life on other rocky worlds, even those that might be similar to Earth. Is life a rare occurrence, or is it common? Or somewhere in between? Scientists debate the subject of abiogenesis, the idea of life arising from non-living material. If it can happen on Earth, can it happen elsewhere, too? A new paper from retired astrophysicist Daniel Whitmire at the University of Arkansas argues that it can.

Whitmire published his new peer-reviewed paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology on September 23, 2022.

Abiogenesis and our own existence

Basically, the paper is a counter-argument to the view held by Brandon Carter, an Australian-born astrophysicist. Carter asserts that our own existence constrains our observations of other worlds where life might exist. What does he mean? Essentially, he says, we ourselves happen to exist on a planet where abiogenesis did occur. But – since we only have our own planet as an example so far – it’s not possible for us to determine how likely it is for life to have emerged elsewhere.

Carter says that Earth can’t be considered “typical” yet … because there’s no set of known Earth-like planets to compare it to.

How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Scientists tend to be conservative. They don’t like to speculate that something exists until they have the evidence in hand. So many scientists seem to accept Carter’s theory. But Daniel Whitmire doesn’t accept it. He contends that Carter is using faulty logic.

He points to what philosophers call the the old evidence problem. That philosophical problem concerns what happens when a theory or hypothesis is updated, following the appearance of new evidence. Whitmire says basically that Carter doesn’t take into account the long cosmic timescales at play in the universe, for example, the length of time it takes life to emerge on a planet. Whitmire writes:

… The observation of life on Earth is not neutral but evidence that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is relatively easy. I … give an independent timescale argument that quantifies the prior probabilities, leading to the inference that the timescale for abiogenesis is less than the planetary habitability timescale and therefore the occurrence of abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is not rare.

Note: This attempt at philosophical reasoning stumbles with the loaded presupposition that life on Earth arose by natural processes, even though numerous decades of origin-of-life research have shown that any pathway to life from non-life would be exponentially more complicated than any natural mechanism ever investigated.

In late September, I wrote about recent discoveries that add to the accumulation of evidence that life does indeed exist elsewhere. In other words – from ocean moons like Europa and Enceladus, to the latest understanding of organics and ancient habitable conditions on Mars – conditions for life seem to abound, even here in our own solar system. In the vast Milky Way galaxy beyond, astronomers have discovered many thousands of exoplanets. So we know other solar systems exist. And, to me, as I write about these discoveries, the odds seem pretty good that life is out there somewhere.

Here’s another example from the realm of exoplanets. New studies suggest that some (or many) super-Earths might exist as water worlds that aren’t just habitable, but potentially even more habitable than Earth. Some may even be completely covered by oceans.

Whitmire and Carter’s approach – a philosophical approach – to the question of life on other worlds is interesting. But, as the philosophers argue the question, the pace of scientific discovery continues. And many scientists believe we’re now on the verge of finding our first definitive evidence of alien life. Some think it will come within the next decade or two … or sooner.

If Whitmire is right, that first discovery will be exciting indeed.

Earth Sky

Optimism about the possibility of extraterrestrial life has always been popular. However, for a natural mechanism to be able to generate the amount of information found in the vast amounts of biochemical complexity within a “simple” cell, known laws of physics would have to be violated. Ideas which violate established science are usually bogus, unless they’re simply refinements that apply in certain limits of physical parameters. (Such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, which modified Newton’s laws of mechanics in the limit of speeds approaching the speed of light.)

Comments
OK, objective truth means that which corresponds with reality. How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief refers?Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
“Tell me what you mean by “objective” truth,” That which corresponds with reality. “ No” So A can be A and non A at the same time and the same relationship ? Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Vivid writes, “Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong?” No. You and I have been around this circle before. Tell me what you mean by “objective” truth, and, once that is done, how does one confirm that a truth is “objective.” What's your philosophy about this?Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
“Declaring that your beliefs are “objective” and others aren’t adds nothing to the discussion, other than to claim some arrogant and erroneous access to special knowledge that you don’t have.” Talk about arrogance, pot kettle black. Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
“One may offer other reasons why something is wrong, using reason, facts, emotional appeals, etc., but the goal can only be to influence others to adopt beliefs similar to yours. Declaring that your beliefs are “objective” and others aren’t adds nothing to the discussion, other than to claim some arrogant and erroneous access to special knowledge that you don’t have.” Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong? Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
“We do not know whether living organisms can arise from inanimate matter but we cannot exclude the possibility at this time.” Just like child sacrifice is still around so is the discredited and unscientific notion of spontaneous generation, but hey it’s slow spontaneous generation. Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
How to say garbage in French? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1hG4W_wr2wbornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
TLH writes, "its about the Creationist Law of Biogenesis “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life”. The Creationist Law 1) is supported by all relevant empirical evidence." Tammi, we don't know how life originally arose billions ago. If you are not talking about the origin of life, but rather about the chain of common descent that comes from reproduction, then yes, living things come from other living things. You are confusing origin of life with common descent from prior organisms. This really doesn't have to do with atheism. it's just currently "settled science", although that is a poor term.Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/60
Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled (or current) science? And if you dont agree, why?
Yes, currently, life is only observed to come from life. We do not know whether living organisms can arise from inanimate matter but we cannot exclude the possibility at this time. Yes, the claim can be disproven by demonstrating life can arise from non-life. Creationists have yet to demonstrate the existence of their preferred Creator or even the need for one. No, the Creationist Law of Biogenesis may be religious doctrine but it is not yet settled science so, "top gurus" notwithstanding, there is nothing there yet to be disproven.Seversky
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Guys could we get back to a question I asked our Atheist friends They seem to of forgotten to answer it. I pointed out that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis ("Absent Divine intervention, life comes only from life") meets the 2 criteria for being a law of "settled science " (one commenter thought the term "current science" was better) And I asked Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled science? And if you dont agree, why? Guys, the answer is obvious. So dont be afraid to agree. I know it means that Atheism is kaput from being at odds with settled Science. That's tough, But if you disagree you'll look like a goof. And us Creationists we dont want that to happen to some smart guys who just got unlucky and backed the wrong horse. Okay, who knows. It looks hopeless now, but maybe someday somebody might invent a way to make life in a lab, or get water to go uphill, or show that conservation energy is wrong. You never know about the future. But honest guys, after Origin of Life Scientists have had 150 years of total failure, wont your latest origin-of life breakthough sound like a check-in-the-mail scam?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
I'd like to repeat a question I asked of our Atheist friends, that they must of forgotten to answer its about the Creationist Law of Biogenesis “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life” The Creationist Law 1) is supported by all relevant empirical evidence, and 2) is falsifiable. Those are criteria for a Scientific Law to be "settled science". One responder preferred the term "current Science" (Falsifiable means there there is a way to demonstrate it’s false if indeeed it is false. For example you can falsify the Law of Energy Coservation by showing a case where energy is either created or destroyed. To falsify the Creationist Law, you just got to make some life in a lab) Anyhow, my question was this: Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled (or current) science? And if you dont agree, why? The answer is obvious. So fellas dont be afraid to admit you agree. Who knows maybe Scientists will someday be able to make some life in a lab. Maybe in the year 2525, if man is still alive. But guys, the top gurus have been trying to falsify the Creationist law for 150 years. And they still got zilch. So until they do, when you talk about what Scientists are doing, doesnt it kind of sound like one of them check-in-the-mail promises?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Viola Lee/55 Concur.Seversky
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Seversky, honest question, did you drink a few brewskis tonight before you decided to 'dazzle' us with your Theological brilliance? :)bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Bornagain77/50
Well JVL, to refresh what I learned in Sunday school, the punishment for any and all sin, no matter how great or small the sin may be, is ultimately death,
So you are saying that no matter what the offense - be it murder, rape, shoplifting, jaywalking or just taking the Lord's name in vain - the punishment is always death? Isn't that somewhat extreme? Whatever happened to "let the punishment fit the crime"?
Moreover, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God so all men are deserving of death.
All men have "fallen short of the glory of God"? What does that even mean? Why does it deserve the death penalty? Besides, who designed human beings to be capable of sin? Hint: nothing happens but by His will.
To make matters worse, there is no way that we, by our own efforts, can atone for our sins.
To atone for something is to make reparations for some kind of damage or harm or wrong done to another. But your God, by definition, is utterly impregnable. There is literally nothing we can do to cause Him harm or damage or to wrong Him. So what exactly are we supposed to be atoning for, using bad language that you fear He finds offensive?
Yet, the great news is that God Himself paid the penalty for our sins, via the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so that we might be rescued from sin and death and have eternal life with Him in heaven.
Jesus and God are essentially one and the same thing and that thing is immortal. We cannot kill Jesus or God. God cannot kill Jesus and Himself, can He? The only thing that was killed in this story is the body God - manifested as Jesus - inhabited for a few years, a bit like the "Edgar-suit" from Men in Black. So where is the sacrifice and how does it atone for harm that can never be caused?Seversky
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
This ties into the discussion on free will going on extensively on the "infinity/Cosmology thread." Moral decisions are like other decisions, as we consult everything we consider part of our self, including our moral sense and moral principles, to self-determine our beliefs and specific judgments. Some may believe part of their nature has access to moral standards from elsewhere, but that belief is still part of their self. Others may have different beliefs about the source and content of their moral sense and principles, and that becomes part of their idea of their self. Believing that one has access to an external source of morals does not make that belief true. We all have the same human nature, so there is some commonality that runs throughout human morals, but, like everything else, there is lots of variation, and so we all struggle with the difficulties of decision-making. We're all in the same boat, though. One's metaphysical beliefs don't change the situation. If you believe God has an objective standard that getting a vasectomy is wrong (to mention a recently-discussed example), then that belief will be part of your decision making. But it is wrong to think that your belief about God and the objectivity of that belief applies to anyone else unless they choose to adopt that same framework. One may offer other reasons why something is wrong, using reason, facts, emotional appeals, etc., but the goal can only be to influence others to adopt beliefs similar to yours. Declaring that your beliefs are “objective” and others aren’t adds nothing to the discussion, other than to claim some arrogant and erroneous access to special knowledge that you don’t have. I will regret opening up this rabbit hole, but the relevance to the discussion on free will set me off. I, like CD, don’t intend to get dragged into another argument, but I have at least reiterated my position for others to consider.Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Including all of the pernicious evil with which we have to contend day in and day out. Definitely “crisp and on target…” Yes someone calling themself Chucky Darwin, wishes to let us know that had he, Darwin acted as the Great Designer of the cosmos, then He would surely have not designed evil into it. What original philosophy there if you would even grace it with such categorization. Better philosopher Robert Jastrow, planetary physicist and astrophysicist: "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." (interview in Christianity Today) Actually the best description of the place and purpose of evil in the cosmic game might be this talk by the author taken from the book "The Cosmic Game" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNSMDWBSv54 Quite entertaining with plenty of humor.groovamos
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
JVL @ 52, the Ten Commandments (moral law) continue onto the New Testament as Jesus affirms them (except the sabbath) and then he even further goes to the heart (read sermon on the mount). Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.... this encompasses the moral law. It is further defined by Jesus in his teachings and later also with the apostles.zweston
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
JVL at 52, Really? There are those who make up their own version of morality. Those who actually want to follow Biblical morality need to be spiritually as well as intellectually inclined to read and understand. Yes, because certain disordered sexual acts and lifestyles are being heavily promoted today, they are being addressed specifically. They are bad for all concerned. But if the words "sin" and "sinful" are alien to you, why ask?relatd
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: Well JVL, to refresh what I learned in Sunday school, the punishment for any and all sin, no matter how great or small the sin may be, is ultimately death, Sure but certain acts are singled out or mentioned whereas others are not. Moreover, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God so all men are deserving of death. Uh . . . again, why are certain acts mentioned and others not? To make matters worse, there is no way that we, by our own efforts, can atone for our sins. So, why try and follow the rules if we cannot alter our ultimate judgement? Yet, the great news is that God Himself paid penalty for our sins, via the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so that we might be rescued from sin and death and have eternal life with Him in heaven. Does that mean that all the injunctions mentioned in the Old Testament no longer apply, if they ever did? What is now, still, considered a sin or bad? Is it only things mentioned in the New Testament? How is one to know what the objective morality says?JVL
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Sir Giles, you claim that 'no sane person' would say you are for unrestricted abortion, but in that thread you made no caveat whatsoever as to when you would be for restricting abortion. You told me to 'go to hell' in that thread, but never did you once make a specific caveat as to when you would personally be for restricting abortion. The quote I highlighted from you in that thread is what I, rightly or wrongly, took to be your 'official' position on abortion. I am sorry if your are not for unrestricted abortion. But I seriously have nothing else to go on but what you actually wrote in that thread. If you are indeed not for unrestricted abortion, please state so clearly now, for all to see, so that that issue may be cleared up once and for all. I look forward to having you join with me in being against the particularly barbaric practice of 'dismemberment abortions' where an unborn baby is ripped apart, limb from limb.
Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg 100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/ Sept. 2022 – (Just) maybe we ought not rip apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb? Especially unborn babies who can “Taste And Smell”, as well as display love and care towards other people? https://uncommondescent.com/human-life/at-medical-express-first-direct-evidence-that-babies-react-to-taste-and-smell-in-the-womb/#comment-765700
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
JVL: "violating all the precepts given in Leviticus are punishable by death because God once said: don’t do that?" Well JVL, to refresh what I learned in Sunday school, the punishment for any and all sin, no matter how great or small the sin may be, is ultimately death, Moreover, all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God so all men are deserving of death. To make matters worse, there is no way that we, by our own efforts, can atone for our sins. Yet, the great news is that God Himself paid the penalty for our sins, via the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so that we might be rescued from sin and death and have eternal life with Him in heaven.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
BA77@48: Sir Giles, so you are not for unrestricted abortion?
Why didn’t you include my entire comment? Just so people can see it without the dishonest quote mining attempt, I have included it below.
As I mentioned, my daughter is in the process of deciding how she will terminate her pregnancy. She has two options. 1) have labour induced and give birth to a baby who will not survive for long. Undergo the pain of labour. 2) go to a clinic and have an abortion. Pass through a line of harassing protesters but undergo far less pain. Anybody who thinks that women don’t think long and hard about an abortion, or who think that they see it as a convenient form of birth control, is just an insensitive jerk.
And if you had bothered to follow that thread you will have noted that my daughter’s embryo was nonviable and was putting her health at risk. No sane person could conclude from my comments here that I am in favour of unrestricted abortion. But let’s stick to the point that you believe that killing babies and the unborn can be objectively morally justified. Those are your words, not mine.Sir Giles
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Sir Giles, so you are not for unrestricted abortion?
"Anybody who thinks that women don’t think long and hard about an abortion, or who think that they see it as a convenient form of birth control, is just an insensitive jerk." https://uncommondescent.com/human-life/at-medical-express-first-direct-evidence-that-babies-react-to-taste-and-smell-in-the-womb/#comment-766081
Of note to being an 'insensitive jerk'
Will Laws Protecting the Unborn Endanger Mothers? Michael Egnor - August 2, 2022 Excerpt: Medically Necessary? The vast majority of abortions committed in the U.S. are elective and are done without even the pretense to protect the health of the mother. Situations in which a mother’s life is genuinely in danger and for which removal of the child is the necessary medical treatment are quite rare. Neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb has an excellent discussion of whether abortion can be medically necessary: "It is often said that abortion is sometimes medically necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. This is simply not true. As a neonatologist, I am regularly consulted to advise mothers with high-risk pregnancies, and I routinely care for their babies. I have also personally gone through two very difficult pregnancies each requiring hospitalization. So I have great empathy and respect for all women who are pregnant, especially those with difficult or high-risk pregnancies. What women deserve to know, however, is that even in the most high-risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure. In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end, and the baby must be delivered. These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. Those situations are considered a preterm delivery, not an abortion. These babies deserve to be treated with respect and compassion, and parents should be given the opportunity to honor their child’s life… A mother’s life is always of paramount importance, but abortion is never medically necessary to protect her life or health." https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/will-laws-protecting-the-unborn-endanger-mothers/ Hillary Clinton is Wrong: OBGYN Says Abortion is Never Necessary to Save the Life of the Mother – MICAIAH BILGER OCT 24, 2016 Dr. Lawrence Koning, an OB-GYN in Corona, California, said Clinton also is wrong about late-term abortions being necessary to save a woman’s life or health, according to Christian News Network. “As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting/killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life,’” Koning wrote on social media after the debate. “Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.” https://catholiccitizens.org/views/68533/hillary-clinton-wrong-obgyn-says-abortion-never-necessary-save-life-mother/ Abortion: The Lies Women Are Told https://spectator.org/abortion-the-lies-women-are-told-2/
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
BA77: Sir Giles, but alas, you have recently advocated for unrestricted abortion.
Really? Where exactly did I do this? Or are you just lying because you can’t logically address the morality of a God who kills children and the unborn.Sir Giles
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Sir Giles asked (among other things): Was it objectively morally wrong for God to order the killing of homosexuals and non-virgin women? Bornagain77 replied (not necessarily to that point in particular): The fatal flaw in the atheist’s moral objection that God was not morally justified in, say Noah’s flood, or the destruction of the Canaanites, is that God was rendering justice for evil done against Him. And justice is punishment for moral evil. I would like to clear up the particular point of God ordering the death of homosexuals. Is that correct? Are there Biblical references establishing that? Is Leviticus 20:13 correct? If that is substantiated by Biblical passages then how is that morally justified? As justice for evil done against God? How so? Because he says not to do it? Does that mean that violating all the precepts given in Leviticus are punishable by death because God once said: don't do that?JVL
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Sir Giles, but alas, you have recently advocated for unrestricted abortion. Have you now changed your stance on killing 'inconvenient' unborn babies?bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
BA77, I’m not the one who is claiming that it is objectively morally justified to kill children. You are.Sir Giles
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
SG: "Is there anyone else here that agrees with BA77 that killing babies can be morally justified?" First, you do realize that one of the primary reasons that God destroyed the Canaanites was because the Canaanites burned, i.e. sacrificed, their children to false gods do you not?
Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel - By Heath D. Dewrell - 2017 Excerpt: This is a warning to the Israelites not to imitate the depraved Canaanites by sacrificing Israelite children to Yahweh in the same way that Canaanites sacrificed their sons and daughters to their gods. https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/12/child-sacrifice-ancient-israel/
Secondly, If I remember correctly, you yourself are very much 'morally OK' with killing unborn babies with abortion. Thirdly, Peter Singer, tenured chair at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and via hls 'Darwinian morality', has advocated for infanticide,
Fact Sheet on Peter Singer Infanticide It may be all right, according to Singer, to kill infants. Because they are not "persons," they have no interest in staying alive, and it is only superstition that makes us think that killing them is intrinsically wrong. https://www.independentliving.org/docs5/singer.html
So apparently, under "Darwinian morality". killing babies can be easily morally justified simply by saying that the children are 'inconvenient' to the parents. So thus again, in order for you to even have the capacity to argue that it is objectively morally wrong for God to kill the children of a people who have sinned against Him, you have to 'borrow' objective morality from Theism in order to do it. In short, you have to presuppose the existence of God in order to even have the capacity to ague against Him. It is very much a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation for you.
Once while Van Til was a youth traveling on a train in Holland, he noticed a father with his young daughter sitting in his lap. Apparently, the father urged his daughter to do something when she suddenly slapped her father in the face. Van Til's application? The girl's behavior illustrates rebels who live in God's world and who are supported by God's common grace (Ps. 24:1). They sit, as it were, on the lap of God, and it is precisely because they sit on God's lap that they are able to deliver the slap of ingratitude. Thus unbelievers who toot their own independence and autonomy are only able to do so as they are supported by God Himself (Jn. 19:10 -11). https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/van-tils-illustrations
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
CD at 21, Because God gave the first man and first woman actual free will - instead of being robots who served without question - sin and death, and all the rest, entered the world when they chose to disobey the ONE command He gave them. Romans 8: 22 "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." 23 "And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."relatd
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
BA77: For instance, a man would be morally justified in killing another man’s children if that other man had first ripped apart, limb from limb, the first man’s children. In fact, the first man would be morally justified in killing that other man as slowly as he so desired once he had killed the other man’s children in front of his eyes.
Is there anyone else here that agrees with BA77 that killing babies can be morally justified?Sir Giles
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply