Did Nothing Create Everything?

[billvon]

They did not claim to create life, because they know they did not create life.

They created protolife - something that could evolve into life. All you need is something that can replicate itself and inherit characteristics for evolution to begin. From there on, the protolife began evolving into what we know today as life.

You really have more faith, than I do!

I definitely have faith in the scientific process. So do you, when you think about it.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

SetiAlpha:

How do you know that God is needed to create life?

I know that life exists.
I know that God exists.

Only life creates life in the natural world.

The hypothesis that an Eternal God (Life) created all other life fits what we know about life very well.

It seems simple to me.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

They created protolife - something that could evolve into life. All you need is something that can replicate itself and inherit characteristics for evolution to begin. From there on, the protolife began evolving into what we know today as life.

Their experiment did not evolve into life.

In my opinion, you are going back into fantasy and wishful thinking, that is unsupported by the experiment. Just my opinion.

By the way, I have been wondering why unbounded extrapolation is so popular in science? Any ideas?

Not saying you are doing that, exactly.
Just wondering about it in general?

It really makes science, as a whole, a lot less trustworthy.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

It seems simple to me.

Brainwashed much?

 

[James R]

I definitely have faith in the scientific process. So do you, when you think about it.

This highlights a problem with the word "faith" that I have discussed at length before.

When you say you have faith in science, you mean only that you have confidence or trust that science can give good answers to questions about nature. But that confidence is not blind confidence - it is a deduction (or perhaps induction) based on the historical successes of science. In other words, it's an evidence-based expression of your confidence.

In contrast, when religious people talk about faith they mean believing something in the absence of what scientists would regard as good evidence. They talk about things like "the faith in things unseen", which boils down to believing that things are there even though there's no good evidence-based reason to do so. If they talk about faith as trust, again they don't mean an evidence-based trust. They mean something more along the lines of trusting in an imagined being that they "trust" exists, despite the lack of evidence.

SetiAlpha's posts in this thread provide an excellent example of her understanding of the word "faith". She claims that we atheists have "faith-based" beliefs, giving our belief in evolution and abiogenesis as examples. But our belief in evolution is an evidence-based one, not a conclusion reached in the absence of evidence. Since SetiAlpha can't conceive of the kind of tentative hypothesising that somebody of a scientific inclination adopts when considering a matter like abiogenesis, she wrongly concludes that a belief in abiogenesis must be analogous to her own religious faith in the Garden of Eden or Noah's Ark.

 

[James R]

I know that life exists. I know that God exists.

I'm with you about life.

How do you know that God exists?

Only life creates life in the natural world.

How do you know that?

The hypothesis that an Eternal God (Life) created all other life fits what we know about life very well.

So does the hypothesis that a long time ago some non-living chemicals came together in just the right way to start life.

The difference is that one of these two ideas is falsifiable, while the other is not. That's why abiogenesis is science, whereas Creationism is just a particularly misguided form of religion.

 

[James R]

By the way, I have been wondering why unbounded extrapolation is so popular in science?

It depends what you mean by that, exactly.

Research scientists typically keep a lot of competing hypotheses in play when they are doing their jobs. Their work involves imagining what might cause something else, and ways it might do that. Science requires imagination.

On the other hand, you talk about "unbounded extrapolation". In science, experiment and observation are king. The natural world doesn't care how beautiful your pet theory is; if experiments and observations don't support it, then it had to go in the bin. In other words, the boundaries that you claim do not exist are very clear in science. The ultimate arbiter of whether a given scientific idea is right or wrong is nature itself.

It really makes science, as a whole, a lot less trustworthy.

The more you talk about science, the clearer it becomes that you don't have the first clue about how it's done.

It's hardly surprising that the Creationist fundamentalists managed to play you for a sucker.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

It's hardly surprising that the Creationist fundamentalists managed to play you for a sucker.

Maybe she is a fundamentalist trying to sucker others?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

...When you say you have faith in science, you mean only that you have confidence or trust that science can give good answers to questions about nature. But that confidence is not blind confidence - it is a deduction (or perhaps induction) based on the historical successes of science. In other words, it's an evidence-based expression of your confidence.

In contrast, when religious people talk about faith they mean believing something in the absence of what scientists would regard as good evidence. They talk about things like "the faith in things unseen", which boils down to believing that things are there even though there's no good evidence-based reason to do so. If they talk about faith as trust, again they don't mean an evidence-based trust. They mean something more along the lines of trusting in an imagined being that they "trust" exists, despite the lack of evidence.

In my opinion you are setting up a straw man argument here.

Here is your, very good description of faith in science, with a few revisions to describe the Christian Faith as it truly is.

When you say you have faith in God, you mean only that you have confidence or trust in God, that He can give good answers to questions about nature, because He created it. But that confidence is not blind confidence - it is a deduction (or perhaps induction) based on many different historical writings, written down by many different authors, which have been recorded over the centuries, in some cases, by eyewitnesses. In other words, it's a historically evidence-based expression of your confidence.

And there is also very real evidence for some of the miracles that God performed in those writings still on the ground today, which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

To say that the Jewish and/or Christian Faiths are baseless is certainly not accurate. It is a caricature, or straw man argument, not reality.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

This is all nice. You refer to God as "He"? What if God is transgender?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

This is all nice. You refer to God as "He"? What if God is transgender?

James R just started referring to me as a “she”, which is fine, but somehow I just became a Grandpa, so? I don’t know?

Great question!!!

I must be confused!!!



Ask her how it all works?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Great question!!!

If God is transgender.

I know!!! It's a great question!!!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

If God is transgender.

I know!!! It's a great question!!!

Loved the video you posted!!!

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Loved the video you posted!!!

Why?

 

[sideshowbob]

Well my position is based on the empirical evidence.

No it isn't. You have not drawn the same conclusion that scientists do.

If that is not scientific, I guess I don’t know what is?

I guess you don't.

The further it goes, the more likely Intelligent Design will be proved!

Intelligent Design can not be "proved" until you can provide empirical evidence of the designer. And Intelligent Design proponents don't seem to be making any effort to do that.

The more complex the experiments get the less likely, unguided natural processes will be able to pull them off.

On the contrary, it doesn't matter how complex the processes are. Even an intelligence can only work with existing processes. The processes will work with or without intelligent input.

 

[sideshowbob]

So you think the sensible stance is to go with random chance based on your 50 or so years exposure to the evidence.

Well, it isn't "random chance" so much as the inevitable and predictable result of chemical reactions. Life is made of chemicals. The difference between living and non-living is just a different set of reactions. The idea that "you can't get there from here" is pretty silly.

 

[sideshowbob]

I know that life exists.
I know that God exists.

But you don't know what "know" means.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

SetiAlpha6:

The only evidence you're offering for your view is to say "I believe whatever James Tour has to say about this. See his video."

It sounds like I'm talking to the wrong person, and I should talk to James Tour instead of you.

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll take a look at the video you linked above and maybe make some notes. Then we can discuss. I won't get to it immediately, because it's an hour long, after all.


I'm not aware of anything that would suggest that anything I've said runs counter to any actual evidence. I assume that James Tour's video will show where I'm going wrong, so I'll get back to you after I've watched it.

It would indeed be better if you could talk directly with James Tour. He is an expert in the field of the origin of life, I certainly am not. But you can at least see his point of view, for your own personal review, if you wish to, in his video lectures.

You have more really great comments I will try and respond to when I get a chance.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

But you don't know what "know" means.

Ah yes! Indeed!
What does “you” mean in your last post.

Are “you” only equivalent to a set of chemical reactions?

If so, is there a “real you” beyond those chemicals and atoms bouncing off of each other?

Or are you just a predetermined set of chemical reactions, unable to do anything other than what you are doing?

Is that all you are, just a biochemical robot?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Why?

Because it showed how unfair some of today’s ideas can become, in a very funny way. That scenario could actually happen! And it is so ridiculous, it becomes funny.