Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Quora: Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligence was required to create life?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Josh Anderson writes:

Yes, it is. Here’s the question you should ask yourself: Is symbolic code something that blind, intelligence-free physical processes could create and use? Or is mind alone up to the task?

The legendary John Von Neumann did important work on self-replicating systems. A towering giant in the history of mathematics and pioneer in computer science, he was interested in describing machine-like systems that could build faithful copies of themselves.

Von Neumann soon recognized that it would require both hardware and software. Such a system had to work from a symbolic representation of itself. That is, it must have a kind of encoded picture of itself in some kind of memory.

Crucially, this abstract picture had to include a precise description of the very mechanisms needed to read and execute the code. Makes sense, right? To copy itself it has to have a blueprint to follow. And this blueprint has to include instructions for building the systems needed to decode and implement the code.

Here’s the remarkable thing: Life is a Von Neumann Replicator. Von Neumann was unwittingly describing the DNA based genetic system at the heart of life. And yet, he was doing so years before we knew about these systems.

The implications of this are profound. Think about how remarkable this is. It’s like having the blueprints and operating system for a computer stored on a drive in digital code that can only be read by the device itself. It’s the ultimate chicken and egg scenario.

How might something like this have come about? For a system to contain a symbolic representation of itself the actualization of precise mapping between two realms, the physical realm and an abstract symbolic realm.

In view here is a kind of translation, mechanisms that can move between encoded descriptions and material things being described. This requires a system of established correlations between stuff out here and information instantiated in a domain of symbols.

Here’s the crucial question: Is this something that can be achieved by chance, physical laws, or intelligence-free material processes? The answer is decidedly NO. What’s physical cannot work out the non-physical. Only a mind can create a true code. Only a mind can conceive of and manage abstract, symbolic realities. A symbolic system has to be invented. It cannot come about in any other way.

If you think something like this – mutually interdependent physical hardware and encoded software  can arise through unguided, foresight-less material forces acting over time, think again. If I were to ask you to think of something, anything that absolutely requires intelligence to bring about, you’d be hard pressed to think of a better example. It’s not just that no one understands how it could be done, it’s that we have every reason to believe that it is impossible in principle. No intelligence-free material processes could ever give you something like this.

But wait, how can we be so sure this feature of life was not forged by evolution, built up incrementally by the unseen hand of natural selection? What’s to say this is beyond the ability of evolution to create?

The question answers itself. In order for evolution to take place you have to have a self-replicating system in place. You don’t evolve to the kind of thing we’ve been describing. That is, necessarily, where you begin.

The DNA and the dizzyingly complex molecular machinery that it both uses and describes did not evolve into existence. This much is clear. Any suggestion that it did is not based on a scintilla of empirical evidence or any credible account of how it could have come about in this way.

The conclusion is clear: The unmistakable signature of mind is literally in every cell of every living thing on earth.

Watch a few seconds of this to remind yourself of the kind of mind-bending sophistication in view here:

Quora

Note that John von Neumann mathematically showed that the information content of the simplest self-replicating machine is about 1500 bits of information. This is a vast amount of information, since information bits are counted on a logarithmic scale, and it cannot be explained by any natural process, since it far exceeds the information content of the physical (non-living) universe. Therefore, since self-replicating organisms obviously exist on Earth, their origin must come from the only known source of this level of information – an intelligent mind of capability far beyond our mental ability – consistent with the biblical view of God.

Comments
Querius: So am I correct in concluding that you’re intolerant of Islamic Sharia law being acceptable in your country?
If the people imposing it and the recipients of it are doing so of their own free will, I don’t really care. With regard to the Miller-Urey experiment, when and where were you taught this?Sir Giles
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Sir Giles @362,
I have no problem with people who live their lives according to their religious beliefs as long as they don’t impose them on others.
So am I correct in concluding that you're intolerant of Islamic Sharia law being acceptable in your country? Sir Giles @363,
I’m curious. What did they teach you about the Miller-Urey experiments in school? My recollections are that the intent of the experiment was to see what would happen if we tried to replicate the conditions of an early earth in a lab setting. Even at the time (early to mid 79s) we were told that we have since determined that the conditions used were very unlike to have existed.
We were taught that Miller-Urey replicated the early conditions of the earth, which when exposed to electrical discharge in the early atmosphere created examples of complex organic molecules. We were not told that the resulting racemic sludge was useless, nor were we told that these presumed early conditions were unlikely. We were also taught about the primordial soup splashing on hot volcanic flows created conditions for random chemical interactions, some of which resulted in "coacervates," the next step to the natural origin of (ta-da) Life on Earth! It was taught as an accepted fact rather than speculation. -QQuerius
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
@382
Do you got any evidence that life emerged by naturalistic means? We ask and we ask, but nobody has ever given us any. How about yourself. Do you got any such evidence?
As I said: there are some step-by-step, chemically plausible scenarios that show how life could have arisen without divine interference. We don't know which of those scenarios (if any of them) are correct. Abiogenesis is a young science (just about 100 years) and it's still in its infancy. Expecting a complete solution to every problem after a hundred years of investigation is asking for way too much. But here's something I don't understand: if you're a creationist, why do you care? Suppose God created everything -- that He created all of nature, and created it out of sheer nothingness, bringing everything into existence by His infinite love and wisdom alone. If that's true, then why would it matter if divine interference was required to bridge the gap from inanimate nature to life, or if God created the laws of physics as enabling the emergence of life? As I understand it, Creation is not just something that God did at some point in history and then sat back to watch what happens: Creation is the constant divine activity of upholding all of reality in existence; it suffuses every moment with His care and wisdom, and He is the necessary and sufficient reason why reality does not cease to be, from moment to moment. If something like that is your view, why would divine interference be needed in crossing the gulf from inanimate to animate nature?PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Dear PyrrhoManiac1@371 You made an astonishing statement, that you seem to believe things without evidence. Here it is: "I think it’s reasonable to believe that it’s very probable that life emerged by naturalistic means" Us Creationist we keep asking this of our Atheist friends: Do you got any evidence that life emerged by naturalistic means? We ask and we ask, but nobody has ever given us any. How about yourself. Do you got any such evidence?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
So, KF, when you say "rules of right reason" are you just referring to the triad LOI-LEM-LNC? Understanding that is what you mean would be useful to me.Viola Lee
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
VL, yes they refer to differing schemes, for example the 17 axioms of Boolean Algebra are not self evident in the sense shown by Epictetus [though they are say truth table demonstrable], but the triad LOI-LEM-LNC is, with distinct identity primary and the other two as close corollaries. Beyond, one can see more complex axiomatic schemes for modal logic and the like. There are even paraconsistent schemes and more. Laws of logic is far more ambiguous, as a result. KFkairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Jerry: Why is it reasonable? Why is it very probable? I think it's reasonable since there seems to be more and more research and data that supports that hypothesis. Probable? Do you mean absolutely (as in for any given planet in the universe) or considering the evidence that has been turned up on Earth? Isn’t that just wishful thinking especially since you then say No, those are completely different qualifications. If I were to ask you: what do you think is the likelihood that life on Earth came about via some kind of intelligent design what would you say and why? Does the expression “emerge” cover intelligent intervention? I wouldn't think so. But, you always say you are well versed in all things evolutionary so surely you would know how to interpret that word. Now if one could point to just one instance of something emerging that would be helpful. You are an amazingly lazy person: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/ https://knowledgeburrow.com/what-are-examples-of-emergent-properties-in-biology/ https://www.timesmojo.com/what-are-examples-of-emergent-properties-in-biology/ I'm not sure you are actually interested in the pursuit of knowledge. You seem to be much more interested in defending your own idiosyncratic views. Remembering that, sometimes, you completely ignore challenges to those views.JVL
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
At present, I think it’s reasonable to believe that it’s very probable that life emerged by naturalistic means
Why is it reasonable? Why is it very probable? Any evidence to back up that assessment? Isn’t that just wishful thinking especially since you then say
that doesn’t mean we’ll ever figure out exactly how it happened
Then the ever present magical cover
emerged
Does the expression “emerge” cover intelligent intervention? Now if one could point to just one instance of something emerging that would be helpful.jerry
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
@371 As I see it, the question of abiogenesis needs to broken down into two: 1. can we specify any step-by-step, chemically realistic scenarios whereby life emerged from non-life? 2. do we evidence from the period of 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago that would allow us to determine exactly which of those scenarios occurred? I also think that abiogenesis is a really new science. Even scientifically informed speculation about it doesn't really begin until Oparin and Haldane in the early 20th century. (Oparin in 1922, Haldane in 1929.) We know a lot more now than they could have, and we're continuing to figure out more all the time (which includes eliminating hypotheses). At present, I think it's reasonable to believe that it's very probable that life emerged by naturalistic means, but that doesn't mean we'll ever figure out exactly how it happened.PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
I wrote, “ Often I have said to KF that I accept the laws of logic, ...” KF responded, “...the self evident first truths of reason ...” So, KF, question: does “the self evident first truths of reason” mean the same thing as “laws of logic”, or something else? Are you adding to what I said, or just agreeing with me?Viola Lee
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
VL, I challenge you to show a case where I actually concretely argue as you claim:
Often I have said to KF that I accept the laws of logic, but he seems to think that once one accepts that a whole cascade of other necessary consequences follow. On many I don’t accept that those consequences are true, and certainly not that they deductively follow.
There are indeed literally infinitely many necessary consequences from core laws of logic, but they hardly simply follow from them. For instance, on universality of core logic, I went through logic of being and possible worlds, here to get to a universal core of math, turning on NZQRCR*, where I of course also note the Godel, Chaitin etc results. If you can show this argument to be worthless and grossly, utterly wrong headed, I invite you to show me how, specifically: ______ . Apart from that, I have argued on reduction to absurdity, e.g. on the objectivity of knowledge regarding any distinctly identifiable topic:
The truth claim, “there are no [generally knowable] objective truths regarding any matter (so, on any particular matter),” roughly equivalent to, “knowledge is inescapably only subjective or relative,” is an error. Which, happily, can be recognised and corrected. Often, such error is presented and made to seem plausible through the diversity of opinions assertion, with implication that none have or are in a position to have a generally warranted, objective conclusion. This, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. (NB: Sometimes the blind men and the elephant fable is used to make it seem plausible, overlooking the narrator's implicit claim to objectivity. Oops!) Now, to set things aright, let’s symbolise: ~[O*G] with * as AND. This claims, it is false that there is an objective knowable truth, on the set of general definable topics, G. Ironically, it intends to describe not mere opinion but warranted, credible truth about knowledge in general. So, ~[O*G] is self referential as it is clearly about subject matter G, and is intended to be a well warranted objectively true claim. But it is itself therefore a truth claim about knowledge in general intended to be taken as objectively true, which is what it tries to deny as a possibility. So, it is self contradictory and necessarily false. In steps:
PHASE I: Let a proposition be represented by x G = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding some identifiable matter in general including e.g. history, science, the secrets of our hearts, morality etc, is the case O = x is objective and knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true} PHASE II: It is claimed, S= ~[O*G] = 1, 1 meaning true However, the subject of S is G, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O and is about G where it forbids O-status to any claim of type G so, ~[O*G] cannot be true per self referential incoherence ============= PHASE III: The Algebra, translating from S: ~[O*G] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*G]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*G = 1 [condensing not of not] where, G [general truth claim including moral ones of course] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] ================ CONCLUSION: That is, there are objective general, particular and -- as a key case -- moral truths; and a first, self evident one is that ~[O*G] is false, ~[O*G] = 0. Therefore, the set of knowable objective truths in general -- and embracing those that happen to be about states of affairs in regard to right conduct etc -- is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it.
That’s important. Also, there are many particular objective general and moral truths that are adequately warranted to be regarded as reliable. Try, Napoleon was once a European monarch and would be conqueror. Try, Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of history. Try, it is wrong to torture babies for fun, and more. Ours is a needlessly confused age, heading for trouble.
Pray thee, explain to me precisely how this general conclusion fails: _______ . Notice, for certain fields, the knowledge we may well have is that we have little more than ignorance and disagreement. The Kennedy Assassination came up recently and that was my argument. I gather some folks are claiming CIA involvement on recent evidence, but I would have to see quality substance before changing my mind. On radical relativism, emotivism and subjectivism, I have used an undeniable truth, that error exists. Call this E, and try its denial, ~E, which boils down to it is an error to affirm E. Undeniable and self evident by instant absurdity. This has corollaries, which is where I think some have trouble. For example, E is true and self evident. Thus the set of true and even of necessarily true statements is non empty. The attempt to reduce truth to opinion or to deny objectivity to truth in general fails. And of course this is warrant to undeniable certainty so objective knowledge is also non empty. The denial of objective knowledge, which is implicitly taken as objective, fails. Of course, that error exists means one must be careful to avoid it or at least find what is warranted, credibly true and reliable. And so forth. Beyond, I have argued to inductive, weak form, defeasible knowledge. As one coming from Physics with the collapse of pre newtonian ideas on dynamics, then of the generality of newtonian dynamics, what else could I hold to but a restrained form of the pessimistic induction about theories? The reliability of a theory is more easy to show morally certain, but coming from the outlandish models of electronics etc, I know many blatantly false frameworks can be reliable. I cannot readily think of further fairly simple cases. KFkairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
@370 A quick aside about Haldane's argument there: at the time he made that argument, he was -- I believe he says -- a materialist in the lab and an idealist in life. He was still searching for a philosophy that would reconcile the materialism that he assumed as a scientist and the idealism that guided everyday conduct. He found that philosophy when he became a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and accepted emergentism as a general truth of physical reality (following Engels). So while Haldane's argument might be fine against reductive materialism, it doesn't work against the dialectical, emergentist materialism that he himself embraced a few years later. (I don't know exactly when Haldane became a Marxist, but I want to say it was around 1930 or 1931. He only rejected it in the 1970s when the truth of the Lysenko affair became publicly known in the aftermath of de-Stalinization.)PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Who is EG?Viola Lee
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
EG2, you and others have tried to suggest that reference to coded algorithmic information in D/RNA is a poor analogy or the like. What is clear is that you have rejected a strong consensus based on Nobel Prize winning work. Lehninger and heirs sum it up, in a famous text book:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
Beyond, we have precisely the kind of broad brush, vague, dismissive statements and sometimes personalities that exemplify that you have adopted the Dawkins standard, those who differ with your flawed school of thought -- evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers -- are inferred to be ignorant, stupid, insane [= irrational . . .] or wicked. That is bias, hostility or even bigotry.kairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Dear Mr. PyrrhoManiac1@361 Thank you for your concise posting on the origin of life. What you wrote was logical and correct, but with one key proviso. Here's what you wrote 1. Either my wife is cheating on me or she is not cheating on me. 2. I do not have evidence that she is not cheating on me. 3. Therefore, she is cheating on me. The proviso involves No 2. The logic ONLY works if you made a reasonable search for evidence that would show she isnt cheating, if indeed she isnt cheating.. For example, take this case. Your Missus has been staying out of town on business, and has told you that she stays at a hotel. But her expense accounts dont claim hotel expenses. In other words, the documentary evidence does not show she is not cheating, although it should show her faithfulness, if she is faithful.. So it is evidence (not necessarily proof) of cheating. That is akin to origin of life research. Top Scientists have made a reasonable, indeed massive attempt to make life in a lab. Had they made such life, or at least made reasonable progress, that would have been evidence against Creationism. But they didnt. Instead their effortss have been a total flop. For almost two centuries And that is evidence for Creationism. Again, as a Creationist, let me thank you for your posting. Your logic and reasoning are soundTAMMIE LEE HAYNES
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
EG, here I transform Haldane into 'logic sums" form. Kindly, let us know how he has failed, without appealing to unseen, something from nothing poof magic:
[JBSH, REFACTORED AS SKELETAL, AUGMENTED PROPOSITIONS:] "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
I predict, you cannot. More broadly, I suspect you are falling victim to the crooked yardstick effect. If a crooked yardstick is established as a "standard" then what is actually straight, accurate and plumb, will seem to be false but only because of a faulty standard of reference.kairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
KG, you often cry strawman as a way of dismissing someone's reply. What exactly is the strawman here?Viola Lee
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
SG [attn VL], strawman, the self evident first truths of reason are involved in any demonstration or frankly communication, distinct symbols etc. You will note where I have argued deductively and constructively is on foundations of math, which is not in dispute here: NZQRCR* are fabric to any possible world, giving core math universal power answering to Wigner's wonder. The closest to that is Godel incompleteness and Chaitin's extensions, which I have simply cited as well established results. It is the factual context of deductive systems as gold standard and the impact of these results that objectors have disagreed, which has them disagreeing with well established history of ideas; notice just how little they respond to cases and sources. On the other side of deduction I am simply using the well known principle of explosion, so we have that what is irretrievably incoherent in Math and elsewhere fails. For instance, on many grounds, evolutionary materialistic scientism (so, too, its fellow travellers) fails. On worldviews matters I have argued inductively, specifically inference to the best explanation. What is interesting is how alternatives consistently fail. On the design inference, objectors yet have to show a case of FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits by blind chance and/or necessity vs trillions by design, with search space challenge showing why. KFkairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Tammie Lee Haynes: Yes, my grammar was very bad but you corrected it correctly so that's good. Scientists, have tried for almost 2 centuries to make life naturalisticly. This was a big effort. Generations of gurus, Noble prize winners, The top colleges and labs, boatloads of money. Their results? A total failure. Those failures are evidence that the origin was not naturalistic. So by the logic of dichotomy their evidence says that the origin of life was supernaturalistic. Well, first of all I don't think you can say it's been 'almost' two centuries; I don't think scientists were trying to create life artificially since the 1820s. You object to evolutionary theorists appealing to 'deep time' but are you not making a similar, counter argument: if you can't do it in a certain time period then it's impossible. Secondly, I don't think it has been a complete failure especially considering the structure of DNA was not discerned until the 1950s. In fact, the now complicated idea of RNA-world has been refined and modified over the years. I'm not saying it's complete or finished but parts of it have been shown to be plausible or even likely. And there are other models being considered and there is a lot of ongoing research. You may choose to throw in the towel at this point but that doesn't mean the effort is ultimately doomed to failure. Thirdly, your logic is faulty. PyrrhoManiac1 has given a paraphrase of your logic in his reply above. Here's another simple example: Suppose I put a die in a box, seal the box and shake the box thereby 'rolling' the die. Before I open the box it is true to say that the die will have an even or an odd number on the top side. EVEN if I have no evidence that the top side is displaying an even number that does not grant me that it's an odd number. What it means is: I don't really know if it's even or odd until I open the box. You may see an echo of a famous thought experiment involving a cat being both dead and alive. Here's another example: any given painting done by a single person was painted by a male or a female. Lets say I ask 20 males to try and recreate the painting and none of them can do it. That doesn't mean that is definitive evidence it was painted by a female. (I chose 'male' and 'female' because it could be argued that some apes and even some elephants 'paint' . . . not that I'm going to buy any of their work mind you.) Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this example it may be that only the original painter (male or female) can accurately recreate the painting; I could test thousands and thousands of males who aren't up to the job but I still can't conclude that it was painted by a female. All I can say is: I don't know if the painting was completed by a male or a female. IF life came about naturally, undesigned, then it only had to happen once. Just once. The effort to create life in a lab has in now way run its course. At this point we still do not know how life arose on Earth, no one (who is worth listening to) does know. Including you. Not only because you can't say how or when it was done but, importantly, you have no positive evidence that it came about by intelligent intervention, divine or not (you know, aliens). The truth is we cannot go back in time and see how it actually did happen. Eventually we may be able to show a possible pathway, each step of which can be verified in a lab experimentally. That's probably what we're going to have to live with. UNLESS, the 'designer' decides to release their research notes and such. IF we got an explanation of how and when, specifically, that would be a game changer. Funny thing though, after more that 20 centuries that hasn't happened (just looking at the Christian era). Maybe it's time to give up on the idea that the designer is going to reappear and explain all? How long do we wait until we conclude: it ain't gonna happen? How long are you going to wait? Is it time to throw in the towel on that hope?JVL
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
VL: Often I have said to KF that I accept the laws of logic, but he seems to think that once one accepts that a whole cascade of other necessary consequences follow. On many I don’t accept that those consequences are true, and certainly not that they deductively follow.
This is why I think the majority of KF’s arguments are flawed. Most of his arguments are based on one or more premise that he takes as “gospel”, but that have not been conclusively demonstrated to be true (warranted). And before he gets his panties in a knot, this is not a claim that the majority of his conclusions are wrong, although I believe that many of them are. It is possible to arrive at the correct conclusion even if your logic is flawed.Sir Giles
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES Here’s why its evidence 1) The origin of life was either naturalistic or supernaturalistic. That is a dichotomy. In a dichotomy, any evidencce against one claim is evidence for the other claim. 2) Scientists, have tried for almost 2 centuries to make life naturalisticly. This was a big effort. Generations of gurus, Noble prize winners, The top colleges and labs, boatloads of money Their results? A total failure. 3) Those failures are evidence that the origin was not naturalistic. So by the logic of dichotomy their evidence says that the origin of life was supernaturalistic.
Actually, for the point no. 1, naturalism is out of discussion because is the most obvious self-defeating theory ever invented. Even the science of physics itself is pro Bible and against materialism/naturalism/atheism : this universe had a beginning and will have an end.. This is a 100% certainty . Bible said it 3 millennia ago , science discovered it in the last hundred years. Go figure ! "If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees"(CS Lewis) We should think about "the atheist reasoning" (anything from atheists) in the same way like the sound of the wind in the trees. All the arguments against theism are presented by atheist scientists as scientific, but are really philosophical in character.whistler
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
from 359, for emphasis. Says clearly a point I have tried to make in the past:
But if that’s the case, then I have trouble seeing how there’s any room for absolutes apart from the pragmatic presuppositions of any inquiry at all, such as “one should not endorse both an assertion and its negation” and “one should be prepared to acknowledge a commitment to the implications of an assertion to which one is committed”. It seems as if you want more absolutes than just the pragmatic presuppositions of rational discourse as such. At present I have trouble seeing how those are compatible with your own disavowal of deductivism.
Often I have said to KF that I accept the laws of logic, but he seems to think that once one accepts that a whole cascade of other necessary consequences follow. On many I don’t accept that those consequences are true, and certainly not that they deductively follow.Viola Lee
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Querius: Originally, I was also deceived by the descriptions of the Miller-Urey experiment in my education. Same goes for Lenski’s experiments.
I’m curious. What did they teach you about the Miller-Urey experiments in school? My recollections are that the intent of the experiment was to see what would happen if we tried to replicate the conditions of an early earth in a lab setting. Even at the time (early to mid 79s) we were told that we have since determined that the conditions used were very unlike to have existed. The reason that it was still being taught was to provide a good example of a well designed experiment. It also had the benefits of demonstrating that some chemicals required for life could result from chemical reactions. We were never told that this was proof of a natural OoL.Sir Giles
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Querius: If, for example, your company was located in Qatar, such actions would have been a very poor idea. So, do you think Islam should be banned in your country as a consequence of their beliefs and potential reprisals?
I have no problem with people who live their lives according to their religious beliefs as long as they don’t impose them on others.Sir Giles
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
@360 By that logic: 1. Either my wife is cheating on me or she is not cheating on me. 2. I do not have evidence that she is not cheating on me. 3. Therefore, she is cheating on me.PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Dear JVL @ 358 With the greatest repect, what you wrote was nonsense Here is what you wrote: "Please note: saying scientists have not be(en) able to show it (the origin of life) could happen via unguided processes. That’s not evidence it couldn’t have happened that way, that’s just saying no one has figured it out yet. Well, yes it is evidence. To deny that is silly. It is, of course, not proof. Here's why its evidence 1) The origin of life was either naturalistic or supernaturalistic. That is a dichotomy. In a dichotomy, any evidencce against one claim is evidence for the other claim. 2) Scientists, have tried for almost 2 centuries to make life naturalisticly. This was a big effort. Generations of gurus, Noble prize winners, The top colleges and labs, boatloads of money Their results? A total failure. 3) Those failures are evidence that the origin was not naturalistic. So by the logic of dichotomy their evidence says that the origin of life was supernaturalistic. As the failure has been total, ALL the evidence says that the origin of life was not naturalistic. In other words, all the evidence supports Creationism. Again, it is not proof of Creationism. But by similar reasoning, the Conservation of Energy is also unproven, indeed it is also unprovable. In Energy, however, Atheism isnt on the line. So I trust you join Top Scientists in not rejecting the Conservation of Energy,TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
@293
PM1, did you see me ever identifying first plausibles, as a bloc, as unquestionable first principles? I’ll save time by saying, NO. Instead, I repeatedly identified a SMALL subset as self evident (which implies the attempt to deny is instantly absurd), having given Epictetus on core logic as a key case.
So far, we pretty much agree. For those claims that the Stoics (Epictetus and Cicero) identify as "self-evident," I would want to say that these are pragmatic presuppositions of rational discourse: one cannot deny these principles and yet be playing the game of giving and asking for reasons. But, it seems to me, you draw somewhat different conclusions from this position than I do. On my view, taking these general attitude means giving up on what Dewey attacked as The Quest for Certainty. We should be prepared to agree with Quine when he said that we can give up on any claim, as long as we are prepared to make adjustments elsewhere in the conceptual system. On Quine's view, there's no a priori reason why we should not have given up on the law of the excluded middle, if that's what we needed in order to make sure of wave/particle complementarity in quantum mechanics. Likewise, there's no a priori reason why we can't construct formal systems that handle contradictions differently than how classical logic handles them (see paraconsistent logic).* It seems to me that on the one hand, you clearly disavow the Cartesian project of doing metaphysics as if it were mathematics, where truths are deductively inferred from given axioms. On your view, we should evaluate competing metaphysical doctrines on inductive and abductive terms (as well as on deductive terms, as appropriate). But if that's the case, then I have trouble seeing how there's any room for absolutes apart from the pragmatic presuppositions of any inquiry at all, such as "one should not endorse both an assertion and its negation" and "one should be prepared to acknowledge a commitment to the implications of an assertion to which one is committed". It seems as if you want more absolutes than just the pragmatic presuppositions of rational discourse as such. At present I have trouble seeing how those are compatible with your own disavowal of deductivism. * The basic difference is that in paraconsistent logics, the rule is that not every sentence is true. It echos a nice point made long ago by Hilary Putnam -- as he put it, there is at least one a priori truth, which is that not every sentence is both true and false.PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Tammie Lee Haynes: In my statements I claimed that THIS is a fact: “ALL the scientific evidence shows that life began through Divine inervention.” If you disagree with that claim, please tell us what the contrary evidence is. What specific evidence are you referring to considering that no one claims to know, for sure, how life got started on Earth? Please note: saying scientists have not be able to show it could happen via unguided processes. That's not evidence it couldn't have happened that way, that's just saying no one has figured it out yet. So, again: what evidence do you think points to life on Earth having a divine beginning?JVL
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: while the prime factor, fundamental theorem of Arithmetic is stated in terms of products, the four rules reduce to sums with possibility of complements That's all pretty much off the point: Jerry got the statement of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic incorrect. Complements have nothing to do with it. You think you're being clever and insightful but your just stirring the pot to make some nice swirls. However, the significance of the four gives reason to treat of them separately. Huh? "[T]o treat of them separately"? What does that mean? What is the point? Onward systems tend to be based on such including going N–> ZQRCR* etc, algebra where we play with symbolised constants, variables and equations etc, sequences series limits infinitesimals and calculus, matrices and vectors, advanced abstract algebra etc. "[W]here we play with symbolised constants"? Who speaks like that? We use symbols to stand for variables as well as constants. WFT? "[S]equences series limits infinitesimals . . ." Missing some commas there? What was the point of this whole paragraph? Just to make you sound profound and knowledgeable? You didn't actually say anything worth noting. Is it some big news that starting with arithmetic you can buildup lots of other advanced mathematical techniques? Hardly. Except, of course, the stuff in the 'black hole' foreshadowed by Godel eh? You know, that dirty secret at the heart of mathematics that no one wants to speak of or address. The thing that shook mathematics to its core. Whatever it was you claimed.JVL
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
F/N, coming back to a technical point, while the prime factor, fundamental theorem of Arithmetic is stated in terms of products, the four rules reduce to sums with possibility of complements. However, the significance of the four gives reason to treat of them separately. Onward systems tend to be based on such including going N--> ZQRCR* etc, algebra where we play with symbolised constants, variables and equations etc, sequences series limits infinitesimals and calculus, matrices and vectors, advanced abstract algebra etc. On the computing side, addition plus complements is established and base two floating point allows for powerful calculation. Of course, all of this connectedness brings Godel, Chaitin et al right into the heart of doing serious math. KFkairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 16

Leave a Reply