Criteria of 'Existence'

[Aloysium]

I like that quote! But, is suicide the only option in a meaningless chaos? Lots of people lives they believe to be meaningless, and often are boring, frustrated an unpleasant. They just quitely serve their time, doing a meaningless job, to cover the expenses of living a life they never wanted. If they had the option of never being born, of course, they’d gladly take it- but suicide is a troublesome and unpleasant act for all concerned, so they just wait for nature to take its course.

I’d say that is the reality of 90% of the population in the West.

The inclusion of suicide in my remark sounds a bit melodramatic on second reading, but I included it not only as a tip of the hat to Camus, but to underline the fact that not facing the realities of this world (sin) is ultimately self-destructive.

I don’t know about the 90%, although that figure does sound reasonable if our source of information is the media.
Consumerism is a dehumanizing system that helps render life less complicated; there appears to less on the line when choice is reduced to what type of deodorant to use.

 

[inocente]

The only authorities you recognize are on U-tube?

Am I supposed to take them against Newton, Darwin, and Einstein?

You didn’t respond to what I said in that post, so I’ll repeat it: “Newton was wrong. The solar system resulted from collisions of debris gradually producing planets orbiting in one plane in one direction, which hoovered up pretty much everything else.”.

I’d have thought that it’s easy enough to understand the reasoning with or without a video demo. Do you think the reasoning is wrong, and if so how?

*We can’t escape using authorities because we can’t know everything by ourselves.

It’s a matter of whom do you trust.

I trust the instincts of scientists who allow God as the master puzzle solver.*

If you don’t know the difference between untestable remarks and tested theories then you would do well to read up on the philosophy of science.

inocente, I know you really have no use for philosophy, but there is a thing called the philosophy of science. That philosophy is not conducted in a laboratory. It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. The principles of science are axiomatic.

Please quote where you think I said philosophy is no use.

By talking of axioms you appear to have ignored all philosophies of science except those which are foundationalist. I disagree that science needs or uses any axioms, the methodology is self-testing.

There’s a world of difference between a testable scientific theory and an untestable interpretation. Your list of “conclusions” are interpretations and opinions. There is no evidential basis for claiming that the universe was created and isn’t eternal or infinite. Georges Lemaître himself said the big bang is not necessarily a creation event, his big bang theory is that the universe was once very small and there’s no way to know what its previous state was, if any. “The universe is governed by laws, not by chaos” is wrong on at least two counts: laws are our invention, phenomena do not know our laws; and we can see that the universe is not governed by perfect order, if it was then the stars would be in a perfect pattern in the sky rather than randomly placed, there would never be hurricanes or earthquakes, and so on. “The universe appears to be created to produce life” is just wishful thinking as there’s no experiment by which you can create other universes to test your idea.

We all interpret knowledge and probably can’t help but do it, but there’s a wide chasm between an idea which is open to falsification by empirical evidence and one which isn’t.

 

[inocente]

You did not explain:

Whatever, I wouldn’t over-extend myself to find an explanation. I was not there; it would have been pretty interesting.

I think the main reason for performing a ritual countdown first is that the lifters won’t be successful unless they synchronize precisely, since otherwise it’s too much weight for one person to lift. The lifters may also need to be a bit pumped-up to have the necessary confidence.

 

[Nihilist]

.

As far as a definition goes I would offer the following.
to have real being whether material or spiritual (Merriam-Webster)
to have actual being : to be (Dictionary.com)
to be, or to be real : to have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood (Cambridge Dictionary)
what has reality of its own and not merely in potency (Bernard Wuellner, SJ, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy

.

Hmmm- Is there a definition which does not include ‘reality’ ‘existence’, ‘real’, ‘being’?

Otherwise- it’s like when you look up ‘dog’ and it says ‘canine’. Then you look up ‘canine’ and it says ‘dog’.

Now, at least with that example, one could refer to a Picture-Dictionary. But with being/existence/reality there is no picture…And no definitions, apart from circular ones (sorry- self-referential ones)

Does that it mean… Existence means nothing?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Hmmm- Is there a definition which does not include ‘reality’ ‘existence’, ‘real’, ‘being’?

Otherwise- it’s like when you look up ‘dog’ and it says ‘canine’. Then you look up ‘canine’ and it says ‘dog’.

Now, at least with that example, one could refer to a Picture-Dictionary. But with being/existence/reality there is no picture…And no definitions, apart from circular ones (sorry- self-referential ones)

Does that it mean… Existence means nothing?

We’re back to the fact that the apprehension of being is fundamental or foundational. It IS in every sentence in one way or another. Even if one could define “existence” in terms of something more fundamental the word “IS” would still appear in the definition: existence is . . . .

I’m not sure I see why one must necessarily conclude that if something is grasped intuitively, it is necessarily devoid of reference and sense, i.e., means nothing at all.

Getting back to your dog-canine point, if one digs into it, it comes down to the same thing on the sense level as the judgment of existence is on the intellectual level, that is foundational experiences. Without some experience of canines (even if just a picture) any definition of any of them refers to nothing (in your experience).

The picture dictionary (if you will) in the case of “existence” is our daily recourse in everyday language to the judgment by the mind that some things are in reality or questions about the reality of something. “Did so and so really win the lottery?” “Is there life on Mars?” “The hornet nest in our back yard [which I know exists] is a danger to our family [because it really exists].” Beyond the level of sense we can define types of sentences. “A question is . . .” Or ask “Is justice a virtue?” “What is a concept?” “Is the principle of sufficient reason self-evident?”

The last question leads to the point that there is a difference between self-evident (or just plain “evident”) and self-referential. Existence is evident to the intellect. It is involved implicitly or explicitly in all cognitive and perceptual interaction with reality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think you want to seriously commit yourself to the idea that we need to actually have been somewhere observing something in the past to make inferences about past events. If you did, you would have to give up substantial portions of biology (development of our ancestors) and chemistry (radioactive decay), most of geology (geologic column, age of Earth), and nearly all of cosmology (the Big Bang). Not to mention any forensic investigation techniques besides catching something on camera.

And you didn’t address the crucial question: If Goddidit is such a useful explanation, why does it never seem to lead to any new predictions?

But recreating a past environment billions of years ago is rather a vague inference. How does anyone know for a certainty what the earth’s environment was like precisely at the moment of abiogenesis? It’s guess work, and therefore not science. The environment that was created in the lab by scientists did not even produce life. It produced only amino acids. You need a whole lot more than amino acids to say abiogenesis happened by pure luck and not intelligent design.

Well, as to predictions, all the natural laws of the universe are predicted by Goddidit. Just as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein said. God is not an anarchist. God likes laws, and he created plenty of them.

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists…”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I disagree that science needs or uses any axioms, the methodology is self-testing.

We all interpret knowledge and probably can’t help but do it, but there’s a wide chasm between an idea which is open to falsification by empirical evidence and one which isn’t.

First you say there are no scientific axioms, and then you offer one. Which is it?

Try to understand that scientific methodology is axiomatic.

It is THE self-evident foundation of all science.

God cannot be submitted to scientific falsification or verification, but scientific principles proven by demonstration point to an original source that created them, an intelligence far superior to our own, as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein admitted.

Saying Goddidit is not a violation of scientific axioms, but rather an affirmation that the Deity designed order in the universe and gave us the understanding by which to detect that order and the power to infer that the order has its origin in the Deity.

Are you, a Baptist, denying that this is so?

Are you saying there is no philosophy behind science?

Albert Einstein:

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” (letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574).

 

[yppop]

This is like saying that the theory of plate tectonics makes no predictions because we can’t always tell when plates will shift. It predicts that earthquakes will occur when the plates shift. Likewise, evolutionary theory predicts that adaptions occur most rapidly when the environment changes. Sometimes we can tell when the environment will change, and sometimes we can’t.

It’s pretty rare that one theory is able to account for all phenomena that may be relevant to it. If that’s the standard to which you hold evolutionary theory, then I’d be interested in knowing what you think of meteorology. We have trouble reliably predicting weather beyond a week or so! Is meteorology therefore worthless?

From Wikepedia; *"Earthquake prediction is an immature science in that it **cannot predict *from first principles the location, date, and magnitude of an earthquake. Research in this area therefore seeks to empirically derive a reliable basis for predictions in either distinct precursors, or some kind of trend or pattern."

Meteorology, on the other hand, does make predictions based on their models; it allows the meteorologists to predict that tomorrow it will rain. The model states that “when a cold front meets warm air”, it will cause rain, that is not a prediction it’s a theory. Likewise, “when plates shift there will be an earthquake” is a theory not a prediction. To predict is to foretell the future.

The difference between Meteorology and Seismology is the former is a predictive science, the latter is a postdictive science. They both have models that explain what can happen, meteorology also predicts what will happen. Evolution is like seismology; they are postdictive sciences, they don’t make predictions. That is why you can’t come up with a “confirmed prediction” for evolution.

I try to avoid a point by point response, especially with someone that resorts to word games or worse, diversions. I am not a creationist and I believe intelligent design is not legitimate unless it provides a model that shows HOW designs are implemented. Alluding to creationism and intelligent design has nothing to do with the simple request to supply examples of predictions; it is merely a way to divert attention or to change the subject.

I happen to believe evolution is plausible explanation of speciation. I don’t, however, believe what is taught in the schools, namely that humans evolved in a series of small steps over eons of time, a description that conveniently skips over several obvious creation events such as abiogenesis, the appearance of the eukaryotic cell, the transitions through the major extinction events, the Cambrian explosion, and the first man.

It doesn’t predict the stratification, but it does predict that each layer will be associated with different fossils. If creationism were true, the distribution of fossils among the layers would be homogeneous. There would be no such thing as ancient/primitive species, because speciation doesn’t happen with creationism. If there had been a Great Flood that caused rapid stratification as many creationists believe, then it’s rather remarkable that different species managed to be sorted nicely into different layers in the deluge.

I think you know what I meant by coming from the great apes.

Scientists anticipated the fusion before they observed it thanks to the theory of evolution. That, my friend, is a confirmed prediction. If it’s so easy to pull off this sort of thing, why can’t the **intelligent design **crowd do it?

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you explain the need without evolutionary theory? How does a creationist, who by definition believes all life was created in more or less the form in which it exists today, explain the adaptations of bacteria?

What could one say? “Well, God made everything as we see it today, except for bacteria. He likes to make those simpler organisms change pretty rapidly just to baffle us.”

Also, I noticed that you completely skipped the points about vestigial organs and un-intelligent design. How do you account for those things? God likes giving animals extra organs for decoration?

I didn’t respond to the above responses because of the creationist, ID diversions, they give me a headache. It’s like arguing with a Liberal.

Yppop

 

[inocente]

The difference between Meteorology and Seismology is the former is a predictive science, the latter is a postdictive science.

I think you overplayed your hand here. The statement was “This is like saying that the theory of plate tectonics makes no predictions because we can’t always tell when plates will shift. It predicts that earthquakes will occur when the plates shift.”

The prediction is not when an earthquake will occur, or when plates will shift, but that plates shift and are accompanied by earthquakes. The theory makes other predictions too, relating to geology and magnetism.

Evolution is like seismology; they are postdictive sciences, they don’t make predictions. That is why you can’t come up with a “confirmed prediction” for evolution.

Doesn’t postdiction have more in common with the benefits of hindsight and occult practices? Evolution makes a number of predictions which have been routinely tested over the last 150 years, but, and this is the main reason for this post, a gentle reminder to you and Oreoracle of the temporary ban on discussion of evolution.

 

[Oreoracle]

But recreating a past environment billions of years ago is rather a vague inference. How does anyone know for a certainty what the earth’s environment was like precisely at the moment of abiogenesis?

We aren’t professionals in the relevant fields. They are more qualified than we are to judge what is or isn’t a vague inference, are they not?

I remember when I was first exposed to Relativity in high school. I thought there had to be a trick or a catch somewhere. Surely scientists weren’t suggesting something so counterintuitive. When I realized they were indeed suggesting such a thing, I tried to reconcile my common sense view of the world with Relativity. After further exposure to the foundations of Relativity, I recognized that the world Einstein described, although counterintuitive and “obviously wrong” to the laymen, was actually well-founded to those who dedicated their lives to it.

The moral: We laymen, whose exposure to science generally consists of vague high school memories and quick Google searches, aren’t qualified to question the foundations of science. Let the people who live and breath it flesh out the details.

Well, as to predictions, all the natural laws of the universe are predicted by Goddidit. Just as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein said. God is not an anarchist. God likes laws, and he created plenty of them.

I would argue that the scientific method actually assumes the existence of laws a priori, so it’s not something that can be predicted. (Yes, I agree that the scientific method has axioms.) But even if it isn’t an a priori assumption, how helpful is that “prediction”? We don’t actually derive any particular law by studying God. Goddidit doesn’t tell us how many laws there are, or in which disciplines they arise, how they are related, which are most fundamental, etc.

It’s a bit like answering a multiplication problem by saying, “Yeah, that’s some number” and insisting that you performed a meaningful calculation. So the number exists…great. But the existence of the number was implicit in the act of posing the question.

Evolution makes a number of predictions which have been routinely tested over the last 150 years, but, and this is the main reason for this post, a gentle reminder to you and Oreoracle of the temporary ban on discussion of evolution.

You’re right, it isn’t worth taking a risk to discuss evolution with yppop. I think I’ve made my case by now anyway.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We aren’t professionals in the relevant fields. They are more qualified than we are to judge what is or isn’t a vague inference, are they not?

This article points to the very speculative aspects of the Miller-Urey experiments.

people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

 

[Aloysium]

I think the main reason for performing a ritual countdown first is that the lifters won’t be successful unless they synchronize precisely, since otherwise it’s too much weight for one person to lift. The lifters may also need to be a bit pumped-up to have the necessary confidence.

My post was in response to yours addressed to Ynotzap.
I don’t need any lessons on physics and psychology and I have no interest in explaining away the event he described.
I decided to comment, having in the past found the Holy Spirt speaking to me through some of Ynot’s posts.
For those uncomfortable with this sort of language, this just means in less accurate language that they had the ring of truth.

In the post you addressed, Ynot wrote about an unusual experience he had had which left him feeling that he had had contact with the supernatural.
Normally, I would not comment on such posts for a number of reasons.
Among these are that they are personal (You shoulda been there.) and that such accounts lose their fullness and power when spoken to those outside the persons involved.

Miracles, I see on a constant basis, all contained within the greatest miracle of all - existence.
If some situation opens the door to dialogue with the Word of God - that is miraculous.
The eucharist is a miracle.

God created and maintains the natural order. It is the solid context in which we are able to meet and relate.
That there have been major miracles revealing that God is God (eg: the loaves and fishes, Christ’s walking on the water, the raising of Lazarus, water into wine, the resuurction) is fact for me.
That there are minor miracles where events that can be explained otherwise, but have a particular significance to us, is just as true, revealing God’s presence in our individual and communal lives.

I am reminded of a movie I saw when I was a kid. It was called “Marcellino Pane E Vino” in the version I saw.
It was about an orphan taken in by some monks, who discovers a wounded man in the attic, where the boy had been told not to go. He brings Him bread and wine. At some point the boy gets caught taking the goods and when the monk goes to the attic he finds only a crucifix, a wooden Jesus on the cross. This is a theme of the movie - that this living person becomes a statue outside the relationship He has with the boy. I recall that the boy is taken to heaven in the end by the Man on the cross, as witnessed by the monks. Sorry for the long story I believe illustrates a point.

What you do in the quote above is use some physio/psychological words to make up an explanation that satisfies your needs and keeps your vision of reality intact.
Oreo did the same in accordance with his world view:

Alright ynotzap. I will explain what happened to you. You may very well be offended, especially since I won’t be as gentle as inocente has been.
You were at work, and some guys thought they would have fun by playing a popular game with you. Upon seeing your reaction, it amused them enough to do it a second time. When they realized you were starting to panic, they let you “win” by pretending they couldn’t lift you as they had before.
That’s it. It’s a boring explanation, certainly not as exciting as the paranormal or Satan himself trying to deceive you. But it works.

That the Word speaks to us, some cannot accept; they have closed themselves to the Truth.

 

[Nihilist]

We’re back to the fact that the apprehension of being is fundamental or foundational. It IS in every sentence in one way or another. Even if one could define “existence” in terms of something more fundamental the word “IS” would still appear in the definition: existence is . . . .

I’m not sure I see why one must necessarily conclude that if something is grasped intuitively, it is necessarily devoid of reference and sense, i.e., means nothing at all.

Getting back to your dog-canine point, if one digs into it, it comes down to the same thing on the sense level as the judgment of existence is on the intellectual level, that is foundational experiences. Without some experience of canines (even if just a picture) any definition of any of them refers to nothing (in your experience).

The picture dictionary (if you will) in the case of “existence” is our daily recourse in everyday language to the judgment by the mind that some things are in reality or questions about the reality of something. “Did so and so really win the lottery?” “Is there life on Mars?” “The hornet nest in our back yard [which I know exists] is a danger to our family [because it really exists].” Beyond the level of sense we can define types of sentences. “A question is . . .” Or ask “Is justice a virtue?” “What is a concept?” “Is the principle of sufficient reason self-evident?”

The last question leads to the point that there is a difference between self-evident (or just plain “evident”) and self-referential. Existence is evident to the intellect. It is involved implicitly or explicitly in all cognitive and perceptual interaction with reality.

OK- let’s consider it’s everyday evidence. Imagine a world where everything had the same color- the precise same shade of blue. Now, if, in that world, I tried to define ‘blue’ by demonstration, I could not point to any particular thing, more meaningfully then any other, and say, “That is blue”. Nor could I define it in helpful words.

So, because we live in an world where ‘everything’ exists, it seems we are in a similar situation to those folks in the world in which everything is the same shade of blue. In effect, the word ‘blue’ would be a useless word to them, since it would be applicable to everything. So it seems with ‘existent’. Since the set of ‘existent things’ includes everything, it seems like a set with no criteria…

Or am I missing something?

 

[Oreoracle]

This article points to the very speculative aspects of the Miller-Urey experiments.

people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Yes, and I’ve heard of some of these disputes. Wikipedia mentions several revisions made to the original premise of the experiment over the years, with at least one experiment taking place as recently as 2007. All of them resulted in the production of amino acids. Some were more successful in producing amino acids than the original experiment, and some were less so (the most recent yielded impressive results).

Again, the scientific community as a whole isn’t claiming that life began one particular way. But I think it’s safe to say we’ve established that the basic materials for life can occur naturally without significant “luck” being involved.

I know this won’t satisfy you. I thought perhaps cooking up an amoeba in a lab might, but apparently even that would just be more evidence of intelligent design. I’ve asked several times what “Goddidit” does for us as an explanation–what new information it would lead to–but alas, still no response.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I know this won’t satisfy you. I thought perhaps cooking up an amoeba in a lab might, but apparently even that would just be more evidence of intelligent design. I’ve asked several times what “Goddidit” does for us as an explanation–what new information it would lead to–but alas, still no response.

The question is not whether Goddidit, but how God did it. It’s either by intelligent design or by luck. That’s the only question at issue here. The atheist has to argue pure unadulterated and fantastic luck. Considering that the creation of amino acids is something nature does on her own, it doesn’t seem to me to prove very much that it could also be done in a lab. We know very well abiogenesis did not occur in a lab. But even at some future date, if that should happen, it would only prove that the elements were intelligently arranged (designed) by the scientists so as to coincide with a fantastic roll of the dice.

But the real question is not amino acids. Rather, the question is abiognesis, the birth of the first living organism, a far cry from amino acids. And the real question lies with so many other factors also arranged to make possible the appearance of life: our exact distance from the sun; the presence of abundant water on the planet; ideal weather conditions; etc. etc. all had to accompany the elemental rolls of the dice.

How did amino acids suddenly become living organisms?

They did not evolve, because evolution had not yet begun.

 

[Oreoracle]

The question is not whether Goddidit, but how God did it. It’s either by intelligent design or by luck.

These statements are contradictory. First you say that it had to be God–there’s no other way!–then you say that luck is a possibility. You seem to have shifted your position from “it’s impossible” to “it’s improbable”.

You already admitted way back in this thread that no one has determined the probability of life occurring naturally. This works both ways, since you can’t then claim to know that the natural occurrence of life is improbable; that would require you to have determined the probability! You would have to know of Earth’s ancient conditions, which is knowledge you deny anyone has.

So you’re stuck in the same boat as us atheists. You admit that it’s possible, and you don’t know how likely that possibility is. Welcome to Skeptic Land, where we sell doubt by the truckload, but we’re fresh out of certainty.

But the real question is not amino acids. Rather, the question is abiognesis, the birth of the first living organism, a far cry from amino acids. And the real question lies with so many other factors also arranged to make possible the appearance of life: our exact distance from the sun; the presence of abundant water on the planet; ideal weather conditions; etc. etc. all had to accompany the elemental rolls of the dice.

Okay, but you still haven’t explained how Goddidit leads to any new information. You have provided no mechanism with which to determine how God did it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Okay, but you still haven’t explained how Goddidit leads to any new information. You have provided no mechanism with which to determine how God did it.

I haven’t the foggiest notion how God did it because I was not present for the event.

I just don’t believe it was done according to the plan and the grace of God.

All that we are disputing here is whether there is no God and so Naturedidit by a roll of the dice.

Or that there is a God and Goddidit by rolling the dice himself.

There is nothing else to know about the event except that evolution Didn’tdoit because evolution had not yet started.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

First you say that it had to be God–there’s no other way!–then you say that luck is a possibility. You seem to have shifted your position from “it’s impossible” to “it’s improbable”.

You already admitted way back in this thread that no one has determined the probability of life occurring naturally.

Either you are mis-remembering what I said or I didn’t make myself clear. You didn’t identify the post so I’m not going to go looking for it.

What I meant to say is not luck is a possibility, but that there are only two possibilities, luck or intelligent design. I did not say that I favored luck over intelligent design. But I think you will say there are only two possibilities for how abiogenesis happened, and you believe it was luck because you see no evidence for intelligent design.

Also, I do believe life first began naturally, but that God is the author of nature and nature naturally obeys his design and has been obeying it ever since the Creation.You seem to think nature has no God, and therefore nature can do its own designing. With this I strongly disagree. A deist might agree with this, but a theist will never agree that God did not design the universe to produce everything in it … including abiogenesis … and finally man on this earth by the process of evolution.

 

[Oreoracle]

I haven’t the foggiest notion how God did it because I was not present for the event.

I just don’t believe it was done according to the plan and the grace of God.

Okay, so would you agree that Goddidit isn’t a very useful explanation considering that: 1) It offers no way to model how the event happened. 2) It leads to no new information or predictions. 3) It is consequently impossible to test since there are no predictions to verify or falsify.

I will even be extremely generous here and grant the possibility that God might exist and might have done it. My point this entire time has been that invoking God as an explanation is a dead end even if you’re right. The supernatural cannot be explained by definition, so to invoke the supernatural to “explain” the natural requires you to forfeit any further investigation. Goddidit can and has been used to answer every conceivable question mankind has pondered. Thankfully some genuinely curious types were persistent enough to seek actual explanations.

It may be the case that science will eventually run out of naturalistic explanations. However, no one has the slightest clue when that will happen, so to give up and use the supernatural “explanation” (which we’ve established isn’t an explanation because it leads to no new predictions) is to say that science has run its course. Sure, every single time in the past that God has been invoked to explain something, those people were wrong and quit the game of science early. But somehow you just know you’re right this time around.

Seriously, you’re someone who knows their history. How many times has God been invoked at an apparent dead end, and how many of those times did a scientist get their hands dirty and propose a real explanation? Even some of the big names in science were guilty of invoking the supernatural too soon, embracing the dead end.

All that we are disputing here is whether there is no God and so Naturedidit by a roll of the dice.

Again, you keep calling the naturalistic explanation a roll of the dice or fantastic luck, but you would have to have knowledge of Earth’s ancient conditions to know that such an event is improbable. This is the very knowledge that you deny scientists. So for all you know, it may have been highly probable.

Either you are mis-remembering what I said or I didn’t make myself clear. You didn’t identify the post so I’m not going to go looking for it.

What I meant to say is not luck is a possibility, but that there are only two possibilities, luck or intelligent design.

Luck is not a possibility, but luck or intelligent design are possibilities?

Anyway, given that you claimed no one has a good grasp on Earth’s ancient conditions, how can you justify your insistence that life occurring naturally would be unlikely, i.e., require luck? For all you know, maybe it was highly probable, as you don’t know Earth’s ancient conditions.

I did not say that I favored luck over intelligent design. But I think you will say there are only two possibilities for how abiogenesis happened, and you believe it was luck because you see no evidence for intelligent design.

No, I’m not making any claims about the likelihood of any particular explanation. Rather, I am pointing out that Goddidit is not an explanation. If it were, it would explain how the creation event unfolded. It would offer new predictions. It would lead to more testing. It hasn’t done anything to make it worthy of being considered explanative.

Also, I do believe life first began naturally, but that God is the author of nature and nature naturally obeys his design and has been obeying it ever since the Creation.You seem to think nature has no God, and therefore nature can do its own designing.

All I’m asking for is for claims to be explanative. For example, if someone asks why objects fall toward Earth, citing gravitational attraction is a legitimate explanation. The idea of an attractive force leads to new predictions, information, and further testing. Now someone could come along and add the stipulation that God accounts for the gravitational force if it makes them feel better, but this doesn’t clarify anything. It tells us nothing more than it did when that same person tried to invoke God to explain the object falling before gravity was proposed. And once we have an explanation for gravity itself, someone will propose that God must account for that mechanism. Again, mankind can spam Goddidit all they want, but it doesn’t add anything to an explanation.

Frankly you haven’t shown what can be done by using Goddidit that can’t just as easily be accomplished by shrugging your shoulders and saying you don’t know how to explain it. And if you admitted that you didn’t know, it would be fine. The problem is that you’re pretending that Goddidit is a substantive answer and that somehow this gives you greater understanding than those who don’t profess the same thing. You are acting much like the guy who feels smug after proposing that God accounts for objects falling back to Earth, as if this clarifies anything.

 

[inocente]

First you say there are no scientific axioms, and then you offer one. Which is it?

Try to understand that scientific methodology is axiomatic.

No I didn’t. Read up on philosophies of science. You’ll find plenty which don’t involve axioms.

Which particular philosophy of science involving axioms do you favor? Please be specific.

*God cannot be submitted to scientific falsification or verification, but scientific principles proven by demonstration point to an original source that created them, an intelligence far superior to our own, as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein admitted.

Saying Goddidit is not a violation of scientific axioms, but rather an affirmation that the Deity designed order in the universe and gave us the understanding by which to detect that order and the power to infer that the order has its origin in the Deity.*

Interpretation. There’s no point repeating what individuals said, they didn’t state it in a form which can be falsified so it isn’t science, it’s just opinion.

In science such things are known as not even wrong.

*Are you, a Baptist, denying that this is so?

Are you saying there is no philosophy behind science?*

I’m saying what any scientist or philosopher of science will tell you, that an interpretation or opinion is a world away from a scientific theory, which is defined by the National Academy of Sciences as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Please name any academy or philosophy of science which states that non-falsifiable remarks can be considered as scientific theories.

Also, you didn’t respond to me asking whether you think the reasoning is wrong, and if so how, in the following: “Newton was wrong. The solar system resulted from collisions of debris gradually producing planets orbiting in one plane in one direction, which hoovered up pretty much everything else.”.