Did Andrei Linde inadventantly destroy the argument from design?

[estesbob]

Gee, I do not think they ever used the word “nucleotide” or “enzyme” in their publications…

I’ll ask you again: Do you have any reasons derived from your knowledge of biochemistry or reading origin of life literature that argues against a naturalistic origin of life.

I’ll quote Joyce again: “Scientific understanding of the origin of life is incomplete, as is the case for many other complex topics. As I scientist I am working to try to improve our understanding, primarily through laboratory experimentation.”

Well, our knowledge is incomplete and scientific investigation will illuminate some information about the origin of life.

Again you are asking me to prove a negative. Its not up to me to prove somehting CAN NOT happen. You are the one claiming science explains all these things. I ask again:

How does something come from nothing(* a question you have studiously ignored )

How does life spring from non-life.

You appear to be so immersed yourself in your quest for “knowledge” (dare I say Gnosticism) that you have fogotten the “who” in your quest for the “how”

---

 

[ribozyme]

Again you are asking me to prove a negative. Its not up to me to prove somehting CAN NOT happen. You are the one claiming science explains all these things. I ask again:

How does something come from nothing(* a question you have studiously ignored )

How does life spring from non-life.

You appear to be so immersed yourself in your quest for “knowledge” (dare I say Gnosticism) that you have fogotten the “who” in your quest for the “how”

---

No, I did not ask you to prove anything… I merely asked you for your reasoning (based on your knowledge of biochemistry and the origin of life literature) to show how a naturalistic origin of life is unlikely given what we know or a reason to doubt a naturalistic origin of life based on what is known in biochemistry and the origin of life literature.

Origin of life literature refers to the various articles in peer-reviewed journals and books written by scientists about this event.

The only reason I ask is to see if your doubt on a naturalistic origin of life is derived from a comprehensive knowledge of biochemistry and “prebiotic chemistry” (i.e. the chemical processes that led on the early Earth that allegedly gave rise to life).

No, I did not forget about “who”. I had interesting e-mail correspondences with Joyce and Shapiro, and I respect them as competent scientists. From correspondence and from reading their papers, I can tell they are ardently want to know about the origin of life in chemical detail. Like them, I share this fervent desire to comprehend life. I see them as humans with desires and motions, so I do not forget about “who”.

 

[estesbob]

No, I did not ask you to prove anything… I merely asked you for your reasoning (based on your knowledge of biochemistry and the origin of life literature) to show how a naturalistic origin of life is unlikely given what we know or a reason to doubt a naturalistic origin of life based on what is known in biochemistry and the origin of life literature.

Origin of life literature refers to the various articles in peer-reviewed journals and books written by scientists about this event.

The only reason I ask is to see if your doubt on a naturalistic origin of life is derived from a comprehensive knowledge of biochemistry and “prebiotic chemistry” (i.e. the chemical processes that led on the early Earth that allegedly gave rise to life).

No, I did not forget about “who”. I had interesting e-mail correspondences with Joyce and Shapiro, and I respect them as competent scientists. From correspondence and from reading their papers, I can tell they are ardently want to know about the origin of life in chemical detail. Like them, I share this fervent desire to comprehend life. I see them as humans with desires and motions, so I do not forget about “who”.

I take it then , in spite of your mind numbing name dropping and casual referecnes to all the intricate science you can think of,you can not answer the questions. Not suprising-no scientist can. Yet for those who will open their eyes the anwers have been evident for millenia.

 

[ribozyme]

I take it then , in spite of your mind numbing name dropping and casual referecnes to all the intricate science you can think of,you can not answer the questions. Not suprising-no scientist can. Yet for those who will open their eyes the anwers have been evident for millenia.

Look, I already admitted I do not have the answers, and that scientists admit scientific understanding of the origin of life is incomplete.

Here is what I have said:

Well, our knowledge is incomplete and scientific investigation will illuminate some information about the origin of life.

…

I can do the same, that is I do not possess a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life,

So I will ask AGAIN… do you have any reason (not proof just some reasons) to doubt a naturalistic origin of life based on your knowledge of biochemistry and the origin of life literature. If you post a legitimate reason, we can discuss the origin of life.

 

[estesbob]

Look, I already admitted I do not have the answers, and that scientists admit scientific understanding of the origin of life is incomplete.

.

Ironic isnt it, that the scientists who you admire so much are ignorant of what the most people have known for eons.

 

[ribozyme]

Ironic isnt it, that the scientists who you admire so much are ignorant of what the most people have known for eons.

Yes it is ironic…

Let’s say that you e-mail Gerald Joyce (please don’t, but this is merely an example) and you tell him about your idea about the origin of life. Tell me why should a scientist who actually conducts original research regarding the phenomenon of biological catalysis, actually read many papers on the origin of life in peer-reviewed journals, and actually understands biochemistry to seriously consider your hypothesis, while you do not even understand biochemistry or any othe literature on the origin of life as far as I can tell. Your hypothesis does not even make a testable prediction and cannot be investigated. To do that would be an insult to Professor Joyce.

 

[Nullasalus]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it does anyone well to chalk the origin of life up to God and leave it at that. Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life - but then, ‘naturalistic’ is pretty all-encompassing to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if we someday, somehow, found one.

On the other hand, let’s say there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. How would Gerald Joyce determine that there is no naturalistic explanation for this? There’s no mechanism for it. It would forever be a mystery - something naturalistic happened, and we just haven’t found it yet. Or at least you could take that position.

 

[estesbob]

Yes it is ironic…

Let’s say that you e-mail Gerald Joyce (please don’t, but this is merely an example) and you tell him about your idea about the origin of life. Tell me why should a scientist who actually conducts original research regarding the phenomenon of biological catalysis, actually read many papers on the origin of life in peer-reviewed journals, and actually understands biochemistry to seriously consider your hypothesis, while you do not even understand biochemistry or any othe literature on the origin of life as far as I can tell. Your hypothesis does not even make a testable prediction and cannot be investigated. To do that would be an insult to Professor Joyce.

So we are back to the “Estesbob is ignorant to understand it” defense?

Can Gerald Joyce make something from nothing and/or create life from non-life.? Or will he give us specualtion that we have to accept on faith?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ribozyme,

Ah, the “anthropic principle.” I read in Scientific American that it puts Descartes before the horse: “I am, therefore … (I think).”

• Liberian

Best turned statement of the weekend!

Of course, once we start talking about infinity, humans are out of our league, being inherently incapable of apprehending it. Perhaps if I were a scientist, I could understand why a potentially “infinite” universe (though I think perhaps what is being talked about is an “eternal” universe, not an “infinite” one) precludes intelligent design, but I don’t.

Seems to me the universe could simply be an idea in an infinite mind, conceived from eternity into eternity, and that such an idea could be so beyond our power of understanding that it could seem “infinite” to us, given our limitations.

But for sure, no matter how many equations end up with that little “infinity” sign, we are never, in this life, going to see infinity, nor measure it, nor understand it.

 

[estesbob]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it does anyone well to chalk the origin of life up to God and leave it at that. Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life - but then, ‘naturalistic’ is pretty all-encompassing to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if we someday, somehow, found one.

On the other hand, let’s say there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. How would Gerald Joyce determine that there is no naturalistic explanation for this? There’s no mechanism for it. It would forever be a mystery - something naturalistic happened, and we just haven’t found it yet. Or at least you could take that position.

I never said we leave it at that. I think that science and faith are totally comaptible. In fact the more deeply science delves the more they find God.

 

[ribozyme]

So we are back to the “Estesbob is ignorant to understand it” defense?

Can Gerald Joyce make something from nothing and/or create life from non-life.? Or will he give us specualtion that we have to accept on faith?

No, I am asking why you should I accept your proposal when you gave me no reason to doubt a naturalistic origin of life.

No, Gerald Joyce is not a person of faith and he does not promote anyone to accept scientific hypotheses on faith, but rather on evidence. Any speculation he gives can be tested in a laboratory, so those speculations can be falsified.

Also he said this:

(quoted from this thread: iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163978)

Skepticism regarding the RNA world is very healthy, and hopefully will lead either to tightening up the shortcomings of this hypothesis or to the development of a better alternative hypothesis. [M]aintain a healthy dose of skepticism.

So no, he is not a dogmatist, and he promotes skepticism.

 

[ribozyme]

I never said we leave it at that. I think that science and faith are totally comaptible. In fact the more deeply science delves the more they find God.

No, the more scientists delve, they propose hypotheses like eternal inflation that eliminate the need for God. I must also add the original purpose of this thread was to show that. With the exception of that Stephen Hawking talk, it seems that the evidence for eternal inflation is strong, but conclusive.

 

[tdgesq]

Hey ribozyme. I have a question about Linde’s hypostheses with regard to eternal inflation, past and future. By the way, I hate using the word “eternal” here because it has a very specific meaning in theology and appears to have been borrowed by cosmologists, but I’ll stick with their nomenclature at the risk of confusing the issues. Anyway, here’s the question. How would one go about falsifying past and future eternal inflation?

I have to assume that Linde has come up with a mathematical construct that is self-consistent and coherent that explains the possibility of eternal inflation. I don’t have the expertise to say that he hasn’t. But mathematical possibility is just that - possiblility. How can his hypotheses be tested with respect to things he claims have been going on forever or will go on forever?

I see this argument used a lot in connection with the intelligent design theory, and it seems to be a pretty good argument. One I tentatively agree with. When we start postulating that things have lasted forever or will last forever, what kind of meaningful testing can be done to verify it? I’m starting to think that Linde has left the arena of science and is dabbling in something else altogether.

 

[ribozyme]

I meant to say “not conclusive”

About falsifying past-eternal inflation, some theorems prove it is impossible under reasonable assumptions.

 

[tdgesq]

I meant to say “not conclusive”

About falsifying past-eternal inflation, some theorems prove it is impossible under reasonable assumptions.

And what about future-eternal inflation? I have the same objection.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Read this: closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/105/105transcript.html

Also: stanford.edu/~alinde/

**About this: **​

• **NANCEY: Well, one of the questions has to do with the infinity of the universe. A traditional Christian claim about the universe is that somehow it must be less than God. And so theologians speak in terms of the universe being finite in time, finite in size, or at least having a contingent origin or existence. But it seems to me that if some of Andrei’s theories about a universe of universes are true, then we may be looking at an ensemble of universes that is potentially infinite in time, infinite in space, and perhaps necessarily existing. And that idea begins to tread on theologians’ toes. **
  **## It’s not less than God - it’s “other than” God. “Less” is apt to be understood quantitatively - & God is non-quantitative. It doesn’t sound like a transcendent universe either - & God is transcendent: & (BTW) not material. A universe which is material at all, cannot be the God of Christian theism. Some other “god”, possibly (such as a Stoic **
  **pantheistic “God” ? ) - but not the God of Christians. **

**Besides, God cannot be spoken of without analogies. God is not like created beings, because He is not created. And He is Infinite, not potentially, but really & totally, only more so. This universe which is described, is so different from God that they have nothing in common. Some arguments for God may be upset by Professor Linde’s ideas - but not all. **

Having one or two features that make a thing “resemble” God, does not God make. I’d be interested to read the entire interview, to see just what qualities this universe is said to have.

Thanks for both the links ##

 

[Nullasalus]

For my part, I’d like to hear a panentheist’s view of this - not pantheist, but the whole Bishop Berkeley thing. But, that’s just idle curiosity.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, the more scientists delve, they propose hypotheses like eternal inflation that eliminate the need for God. I must also add the original purpose of this thread was to show that. With the exception of that Stephen Hawking talk, it seems that the evidence for eternal inflation is strong, but conclusive.

**This is getting repetitive **​

**For the third (?) time, scientific hypotheses do not, & are not able, to “eliminate the need for God” - for a god-of-the-gaps, very likely; but not for God. **

**God cannot be eliminated - because God is God, not something other than God. If every single detail of the entire universe, bar none, were to be adequately, finally, fully, exhaustively, & with absolutely perfect certainty to be known in all its detail, that would make no difference at all to the fact of God. So even if science were infallible & omniscient, & provided a Grand Universal & Unified Truth about all things in creation, Christian belief in God would be as justified as ever it was, for the simple reason that nothing created is metaphysically capable of undermining its Creator, because something that is not the God of Christian theism cannot do away with the God of Christian theism - any more than a character in a novel can eliminate its author; they are metaphysically far more alike than God & the most God-like of creatures, or all the sum of all created or possible or hypothetical universes. **

**Which is one reason why misunderstandings & coolness between theologians & scientists are so lamentable **

**Maybe a reading of St Thomas Aquinas’ **On the Eternity of the World would be of interest.

As objections to Christian theism go, the idea that science can somehow undermine God is one of the least intelligent. If the thinking behind “eternal inflation” assumes that God is a mere god-of-the-gaps, then it is in that respect as unintelligent as ID. **There is not the remotest possibility that God could be undermined by scientific progress, no matter how brilliant & solidly founded: no matter what the models, cosmology, assumptions, ****or the methods adopted. **The objection misses the point completely **This is not Christian hubris, but basic metaphysics. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, the more scientists delve, they propose hypotheses like eternal inflation that eliminate the need for God. I must also add the original purpose of this thread was to show that. With the exception of that Stephen Hawking talk, it seems that the evidence for eternal inflation is strong, but conclusive.

**This is getting repetitive **​

**For the third (?) time, scientific hypotheses do not, & are not able, to “eliminate the need for God” - for a god-of-the-gaps, very likely; but not for God. **

**God cannot be eliminated - because God is God, not something other than God. If every single detail of the entire universe, bar none, were to be adequately, finally, fully, exhaustively, & with absolutely perfect certainty to be known in all its detail, that would make no difference at all to the fact of God. So even if science were infallible & omniscient, & provided a Grand Universal & Unified Truth about all things in creation, Christian belief in God would be as justified as ever it was, for the simple reason that nothing created is metaphysically capable of undermining its Creator, because something that is not the God of Christian theism cannot do away with the God of Christian theism - any more than a character in a novel can eliminate its author; they are metaphysically far more alike than God & the most God-like of creatures, or all the sum of all created or possible or hypothetical universes. **

**Which is one reason why misunderstandings & coolness between theologians & scientists are so lamentable **

**Maybe a reading of St Thomas Aquinas’ **On the Eternity of the World would be of interest.

As objections to Christian theism go, the idea that science can somehow undermine God is one of the least intelligent. If the thinking behind “eternal inflation” assumes that God is a mere god-of-the-gaps, then it is in that respect as unintelligent as ID. **There is not the remotest possibility that God could be undermined by scientific progress, no matter how brilliant & solidly founded: no matter what the models, cosmology, assumptions, ****or the methods adopted. **The objection misses the point completely **This is not Christian hubris, but basic metaphysics. **

 

[estesbob]

**Maybe a reading of St Thomas Aquinas’ **On the Eternity of the World would be of interest.

---

I believe that earlier in this thread Ribozyme dismissed the views of Aquinas (among others) because of his limited vocabulary:

• “Gee, I do not think they ever used the word “nucleotide” or “enzyme” in their publications…”

Riobozyme would have made a good Gnositc