Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[Aloysium]

If something cannot be exained by that equation, then it is not natural.

The equation does not have a place in itself. There is no variable nor constant that describes mathematics.

If there is, then which one is it?

If mathematics itself cannot be explained by the equation, then according to your definition, it would be supernatural.

I guess I don’t think a supernatural-natural dichotomy is of much worth in understanding how the world works. To me it is more about the relationships that exist within and among things that is important. Everything that exists has a relational quality. We can see in ourselves, who are in the image of God, that our thought is in the image of the Holy Spirit, which connects us to and reveals to us what is other to our knowing selves, yet remains a mystery, itself.

 

[Aloysium]

• 1 + 1 = 0 (mod 2)
• 1 + 1 = 1 (logical truth values)
• 1 + 1 = 2 (base 3 or greater)
• 1 + 1 = 10 (base 2)
• 1 + 1 = 11 (base 1)

In mathematics a great deal depends on the context of the expression.

It is a means of understanding our world, a connection between the person doing the knowing, which I believe you think does not exist, and the hidden structure of the world that is revealed by our senses, usually sight. It is what we do as human beings, one important way in which we relate to the world around us. While our brains are structured and work because of their physical nature, what they do is governed by a more complex relationality than those defined by the laws of physics and chemistry.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If something cannot be exained by that equation, then it is not natural.

The equation does not have a place in itself. There is no variable nor constant that describes mathematics.

It there is, then which one is it?

If mathematics itself cannot be explained by the equation, then according to your definition, it would be supernatural.

Sorry Al. But that is nonsense. A variable that describes maths? Uh? Maths IS the description. If you have one rock and I give you another, then you have two. We have designed symbols which reflect this reality. I’m sure that you know them. Apart from the fact that no-one has said that that which cannot be explained is therefore supernatural. What posts are you reading?

To reiterate: That which CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural forces that act on reality is therefore outside what can be termed natural. And is therefore described as super natural.

The equation posted earlier covers all forces and particles that could possibly interact with physical reality. Anything that happens that is not covered by that equation is supernatural.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Thanks. I appreciate the totality of our sensory system. Our freedom to choose is unique though. It can’t be the result of deterministic reactions within our physical bodies. If free will exists it must be able to transcend these constraints.

As to Adam, there’s no way to dispute a swirling cloud of particles that gets assembled just the right way. If that’s what we choose to believe then we’re at pure faith. The evidence suggests Adam came from a womb though. There’s no reason to doubt that beyond questionable interpretations of old texts.

 

[rossum]

… the person doing the knowing, which I believe you think does not exist

The person does exist, but does not exist a moment later. As with Heraclitus, you can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.

and the hidden structure of the world that is revealed by our senses

They are only imperfectly revealed because our senses are also imperfect. Given our imperfect sensory (name removed by moderator)uts it is not surprising that the internal models we build of the world are also imperfect. It is important not to mistake those imperfect internal models for the real external world.

 

[Gorgias]

Which is to show that we have the ability to show if something obeys the laws of nature or not.

If something cannot be exained by that equation, then it is not natural.

sigh. It’s fun to have to repeat the same assertion over and over again: let’s suppose that something follows that equation. Does that simple fact imply that this something is itself natural? (No, it doesn’t. It could be something supernatural which is exhibiting itself in a way indistinguishable from natural processes to our later observation.)

I can see how you might consider that to be a dodge, but it ain’t. To use your ‘gold cross’ analogy once again, suppose you saw two trees in a field – one which came to be there through natural processes, and the other one which was planted by me 20 years ago. How could you tell the difference, such that you could reasonably and conclusively say “this one is ‘natural process’ and this one is ‘non-natural intervention’”? Mind you, I’m not asking about what the trees have been doing in the 20 years since, but merely how they came to be where they are.

 

[edwest211]

Adam and Eve: Real People​

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

• Catholic Answers

 

[Aloysium]

that is nonsense

Ouch; you hurt my feelings.

To reiterate: That which CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural forces that act on reality is therefore outside what can be termed natural. And is therefore described as super natural.

To restate: Mathematics itself is a potent force in transforming this world, and cannot be explained by the equation. According to your definition, it would be supernatural.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Which is to show that we have the ability to show if something obeys the laws of nature or not.

If something cannot be exained by that equation, then it is not natural.

sigh. It’s fun to have to repeat the same assertion over and over again: let’s suppose that something follows that equation. Does that simple fact imply that this something is itself natural? (No, it doesn’t. It could be something supernatural which is exhibiting itself in a way indistinguishable from natural processes to our later observation.)

I can see how you might consider that to be a dodge, but it ain’t. To use your ‘gold cross’ analogy once again, suppose you saw two trees in a field – one which came to be there through natural processes, and the other one which was planted by me 20 years ago. How could you tell the difference, such that you could reasonably and conclusively say “this one is ‘natural process’ and this one is ‘non-natural intervention’”? Mind you, I’m not asking about what the trees have been doing in the 20 years since, but merely how they came to be where they are.

As I said earlier, literally everything could be assumed to be supernatural.

I won’t repeat this again - it’s becoming tedious. But if it exhibits all the conditions that DO NOT contradict what we know about the natural world (see previous equations) then it will be described as natural. If it DOES contradict them then it will be described as supernatural.

Can’t make that clearer. And won’t attempt to either.

 

[Aloysium]

The person does exist, but does not exist a moment later.

There is only the moment wherein we exist. One of us will exist in a moment where the other does not, but we will both eternally exist in the moments that were, and as it has been reveal will be resurrected in eternity.

It is important not to mistake those imperfect internal models for the real external world.

Agreed, but they do connect us to it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

that is nonsense

Ouch; you hurt my feelings.

To reiterate: That which CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural forces that act on reality is therefore outside what can be termed natural. And is therefore described as super natural.

To restate: Mathematics itself is a potent force in transforming this world, and cannot be explained by the equation. According to your definition, it would be supernatural.

Good grief, Al. I have never said that if something couldn’t be explained then it must be supernatural. I have said if it CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural then it must be. Please try to read what I write. I’m tired of repeating myself.

And…yet again…maths is the means by which we explain things. But you can’t explain maths using maths. It’s just shorthand for reality. Instead of getting two rocks to show you that one plus one equals two I can show you the symbols for it.q

 

[Aloysium]

The evidence suggests Adam came from a womb though.

There’s a record of this somehow? What evidence? I truly want to know. The evidence is actually a set of assumptions, which people believe or they don’t.

 

[Aloysium]

I have never said that if something couldn’t be explained then it must be supernatural.

That’s not what I read here.

To reiterate: That which CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural forces that act on reality is therefore outside what can be termed natural. And is therefore described as super natural.
The equation posted earlier covers all forces and particles that could possibly interact with physical reality. Anything that happens that is not covered by that equation is supernatural.

Mathematics itself is a potent force in transforming this world, and cannot be explained by the equation. According to your definition, it would be supernatural.

 

[Gorgias]

As I said earlier, literally everything could be assumed to be supernatural.

Right. And that’s why, in the absence of info, we don’t claim either ‘supernatural’ or ‘natural’ origin for the things that we don’t have scientific data on.

But if it exhibits all the conditions that DO NOT contradict what we know about the natural world (see previous equations) then it will be described as natural.

I get that. However, that’s a claim made without evidence. And, to claim it for one side while at the same time saying that the other side doesn’t even exist… well, that’s simply a statement of your personal faith.

Can’t make that clearer.

Oh, trust me – you’ve made it perfectly clear. However, since you have a bias against the supernatural, your claims are at best one-sided (and at worst, blatantly prejudicial).

As long as you’re cool with that, then all good.

 

[buffalo]

In mathematics a great deal depends on the context of the expression.

No matter how you play this game when translated into reality if I hold up 1 finger and then another we call that 2.

 

[buffalo]

The evidence suggests Adam came from a womb though.

Did he have a belly button?

 

[rossum]

No matter how you play this game when translated into reality if I hold up 1 finger and then another we call that 2.

Or “deux” or “zwei” or “dva”. You do realise that the Chinese character for S(S(0)) looks a lot like ‘=’ ?

Oh, yes: “S(S(0))” is the Arabic number 2 written in Peano notation. That is the Roman II if you prefer it that way.

All you are doing here is confirming my point about the unstated assumptions behind many mathematical statements.

We can also call that a V-sign.

 

[buffalo]

All you are doing here is confirming my point about the unstated assumptions behind many mathematical statements.

These are all symbols to designate the very same reality.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I have never said that if something couldn’t be explained then it must be supernatural.

That’s not what I read here.

To reiterate: That which CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural forces that act on reality is therefore outside what can be termed natural. And is therefore described as super natural.
The equation posted earlier covers all forces and particles that could possibly interact with physical reality. Anything that happens that is not covered by that equation is supernatural.

Then you don’t understand what was written.

W: Something happened.
A: How?
W: We have some ideas but we’re not sure yet.
A: Are there any signs that it contradicted what we know to be natural forces?
W: None.
A: So we know it’s not supernatural?
W: Correct.

 

[rossum]

These are all symbols to designate the very same reality.

How do you know that? Our senses are imperfect, and differ between people. We cannot know reality as it actually is. Everything we sense is imperfect, through a glass darkly.