abiogenesis vs id using a razor sharp method

reply to post by DazDaKing

I am aware of the problem a creator poses in terms of his own conception - dont #ing patronise me.

Tsk, tsk. Such language.

That isn't the fatal flaw. Work it out. As I_A said, it isn't that hard.

I'll give you a clue. Here:

It's like, if we were to eventually created a virtual universe as complex as ours, and we plugged people in or coded self awareness (depending on what you believe consciousness to be). Eventually, our created virtual race will ponder its origin of existence, perhaps due to nonsensical periods in their history, or unbelievable finds in their science. They may arrive at the idea of a creator, but certain virtual people will turn around and say 'but who created them?!'. As this shows, it's a valid question...

There you go. The fatal flaw is right in there. Spotted it yet?

DazDaKing

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

I will spell it out - the " explain the alledged designers orign " does NOT posit that a designer is impossible - merely that the alledged designer needs a special pleading to explain its origin

get it yet ?

I'm glad you spelled it out. I originally read your attitude to be that of 'this means God can't exist'.

Yes, you're right, it does of course require 'special pleading'. Once again though, that doesn't detract from it as a possibility. Those questions can be answered in sensical ways, although I suspect if that was the actual case (a creator), the answers to these questions would be very nonsensical from our perspective.

I've always felt I need a 'special pleading' to describe how out universe came together in this exact way - allowing me to be what I am, act how I desire, and feel how I do'. It is not the evolution of life that gets me, it'a what life actually is, how it's experienced and how it all pieces together that blows my mind. The fact I have so much love for certain people and can share such amazing experiences, even with animals and such. It's all too beautiful, even with the suffering. To me, that has always needed 'special pleading'. It's one thing to say a universe can spontaneously just start, but for it to turn out like this and allow this exact moment to manifest...truly magnificent.

So from my point of view, either way I'm sort of stuck. This is all too brilliant to call an accident, but then at the same time I know nothing of and cannot prove a creator. It leaves me in an awkward position, where I can see the beauty of both arguments. Unfortunately, this also means I'm usually caught in a lot of cro
ss fire ;]

last two posts were spot on.

its impossible to debate here

to just bring it up is eniugh to be called names

likr all my reading and studying was all for naught because obviously im a bible thumping moron because i dont belive evolution explains existance. but thats ok bacause some guy who will parrot

"who created the creator" has a much better grasp on the subject than i do

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

I am aware of the problem a creator poses in terms of his own conception - dont #ing patronise me.

Tsk, tsk. Such language.

That isn't the fatal flaw. Work it out. As I_A said, it isn't that hard.

I'll give you a clue. Here:

It's like, if we were to eventually created a virtual universe as complex as ours, and we plugged people in or coded self awareness (depending on what you believe consciousness to be). Eventually, our created virtual race will ponder its origin of existence, perhaps due to nonsensical periods in their history, or unbelievable finds in their science. They may arrive at the idea of a creator, but certain virtual people will turn around and say 'but who created them?!'. As this shows, it's a valid question...

There you go. The fatal flaw is right in there. Spotted it yet?

yes

trying to have a rational conversation with those who are unrational will make u want to kill youself.

FatherStacks
reply to post by Metaphysique

 

What does epigenetics have to do with the origins of life?

from the OP:

notice in the SG wiki it says 'obsolete' in the first sentence and goes on to make sure that you know how science now thinks the same thing but in a different way, so its ok

Another_Nut

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

I am aware of the problem a creator poses in terms of his own conception - dont #ing patronise me.

Tsk, tsk. Such language.

That isn't the fatal flaw. Work it out. As I_A said, it isn't that hard.

I'll give you a clue. Here:

It's like, if we were to eventually created a virtual universe as complex as ours, and we plugged people in or coded self awareness (depending on what you believe consciousness to be). Eventually, our created virtual race will ponder its origin of existence, perhaps due to nonsensical periods in their history, or unbelievable finds in their science. They may arrive at the idea of a creator, but certain virtual people will turn around and say 'but who created them?!'. As this shows, it's a valid question...

There you go. The fatal flaw is right in there. Spotted it yet?

yes

trying to have a rational conversation with those who are unrational will make u want to kill youself.

The OP doesn't live up to its title (Abiogenesis vs id using a razor sharp method). I don't understand why you're getting your knickers in a twist.

reply to post by DazDaKing

Lmao, how sweet is it that within this same thread you expose yourself for the high-horse riding, self-righteous type of guy you are.

If one can bring a little light into some human heart every day, it makes all the difference, don't you find? But what a shame you couldn't use that seven-letter word you're thinking instead of 'type of guy'. So irksome, these petty Terms and Conditions.

Now I understand why you drew me into this, you can't stand people arguing for the existence of God, it genuinely pisses you off doesn't you.

I have no objection to it at all. But a sitting duck like your post — all that squawking and flapping but no lift whatsoever — was begging for birdshot. Don't ruffle your feathers up so; we all have our off-days.

Sigh, why are so many atheists such ugly people. If someone wants to believe God created them let it be. Don't throw in snide remarks about their intelligence, that ironically only discredits yours.

I'll have you know I'm quite good-looking. And if someone wants to believe God created them, and even to tell me so, I'm very happy to hear them out without contradicting them. But that isn't exactly the case here, is it? No-one is trying to tell us God created them, they're presenting a creationist — 'intelligent design', if you prefer euphemism to straight talking — argument based on an illogical premise and claiming it is valid. You don't seem to have spotted the premise yet, so we're having this conversation. Or were, since you have apparently decided to put an end to it.

If you want an actual, honest and intellectual debate about the creator I'm here - to do it from an unbiased viewpoint.

That would be off topic for the thread and besides, I have no interest in the subject. God may very well exist, even though on n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse; I just hope He doesn't, for reasons explained long ago by Epicurus.

*

reply to post by Another_Nut

trying to have a rational conversation with those who are unrational will make u want to kill youself.

If that were the case, dear Nut, I would be long dead. Do you imagine your opening post was rational?

If this goes to a third page without your figuring it out, I promise to explain.

helldiver

Another_Nut

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

I am aware of the problem a creator poses in terms of his own conception - dont #ing patronise me.

Tsk, tsk. Such language.

That isn't the fatal flaw. Work it out. As I_A said, it isn't that hard.

I'll give you a clue. Here:

It's like, if we were to eventually created a virtual universe as complex as ours, and we plugged people in or coded self awareness (depending on what you believe consciousness to be). Eventually, our created virtual race will ponder its origin of existence, perhaps due to nonsensical periods in their history, or unbelievable finds in their science. They may arrive at the idea of a creator, but certain virtual people will turn around and say 'but who created them?!'. As this shows, it's a valid question...

There you go. The fatal flaw is right in there. Spotted it yet?

yes

trying to have a rational conversation with those who are unrational will make u want to kill youself.

The OP doesn't live up to its title (Abiogenesis vs id using a razor sharp method). I don't understand why you're getting your knickers in a twist.

i explained id vs abiogenesis using the scientific method and occams razor.

please explain , using the scientific method and occams razor ,why abiogenesis is a stronger arguement

helldiver

Another_Nut

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

I am aware of the problem a creator poses in terms of his own conception - dont #ing patronise me.

Tsk, tsk. Such language.

That isn't the fatal flaw. Work it out. As I_A said, it isn't that hard.

I'll give you a clue. Here:

It's like, if we were to eventually created a virtual universe as complex as ours, and we plugged people in or coded self awareness (depending on what you believe consciousness to be). Eventually, our created virtual race will ponder its origin of existence, perhaps due to nonsensical periods in their history, or unbelievable finds in their science. They may arrive at the idea of a creator, but certain virtual people will turn around and say 'but who created them?!'. As this shows, it's a valid question...

There you go. The fatal flaw is right in there. Spotted it yet?

yes

trying to have a rational conversation with those who are unrational will make u want to kill youself.

The OP doesn't live up to its title (Abiogenesis vs id using a razor sharp method). I don't understand why you're getting your knickers in a twist.

i explained id vs abiogenesis using the scientific method and occams razor.

please explain , using the scientific method and occams razor ,why abiogenesis is a stronger arguement

Astyanax
reply to post by FatherStacks

 

It's just the flavour of the year for desperate creationists. Epigenetics = genetics ain't everything = evolution didn't happen = God Did It.

The sort of thing that appeals to pre-Enlightenment minds; or do I mean pre-human minds?

umm no
just providing another example of a concept formerly denied as false by "scientists" and then repackaged and brought in through the back door when investigations/experiments begin to show otherwise.

meanwhile your pre-human statement is a perfect example of the hubris of reason.

reply to post by Metaphysique

meanwhile your pre-human statement is a perfect example of the hubris of reason.

Well, reason is the quintessentially human attribute. When you say something reasonable on this thread, I'll withdraw my statement.

(Statements like 'water is wet' don't count, okay?)

reply to post by Another_Nut


Well for starters "abiogenesis vs id" is an illogical argument as the origin of the creator would have to be considered. You ruled out deities in your OP so we can only assume your idea of a creator is an intelligent biological life form (in the conventional sense of not being akin to a god, shimmering electrical space cloud or v ger).

This has already been explained to you and to the Metaphysique (?) poster.

You admittedly made hypothetical assumptions in your OP (which themselves would require numerous other assumptions for them to be valid) but if you assume a creator you must also assume the creator was created.

Get it?

Astyanax
reply to post by Metaphysique

 

meanwhile your pre-human statement is a perfect example of the hubris of reason.

Well, reason is the quintessentially human attribute. When you say something reasonable on this thread, I'll withdraw my statement.

(Statements like 'water is wet' don't count, okay?)

edit on 17/11/13 by Astyanax because: one can never be too clear.

Wrong, Creativity is the quintessentially Human Attribute.

as for your "challenge" ridiculous ,I've no need to lower myself to playing your game by your rules.

you live in a small box, looking at the world through a vacuole, shall a pet dog refer to humans as scum?


the so called "enlightenment" you refer to was a reaction to the age of terror brought about by psychopaths under the cloak of religion, now supplanted/hijacked by the very same psychopaths now cloaked under the cover of reason [and reasonableness ] with the very same wars on terror [i.e. humanity ] and their war on drugs [consciousness], and the very same arguments/"logic" all repacked and re-worded; [sort of like the old "everything is merely matter in motion" BS: now the neuro-scientific-POV] that has killed more human beings in its mere half-millennium of existence, than any so called "irrationality" that came before it, [as was the case of those "enlightened beings" who established a church to reason in paris during "the terror" with an orgy of bloodletting, never mind the megadeaths of the 20th century] in addition to threatening to turn the planet into a polluted charnel pit inhabited only by animalistic automatons.


And if everything is merely "matter in motion" what makes you a font of truth, or grant your judgements and opinions any validity?

lol, like I'm going to waste my precious time arguing sophistries with a bag of rocks



the above is a 100% godwin's free post [no need, you see]

reply to post by Another_Nut


Fire can be also created in the lab so we should call it Intelligent Burning.

GetHyped
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Fire can be also created in the lab so we should call it Intelligent Burning.

only if fire is intelligent, which i dony claim to know

reply to post by Another_Nut


appologies for starting with the last response , but :

your answer raises an interesting question :

in your world view is an intelligent designer only required for an intelligent organism / result ? ?

as its very easy to read into your response , the assumption that plant life , uni-cellular life and geological structures can all arise from naturalistic processes , but intelligent life needs a alledged designer

could you please clarify ?

dam - edit to add :

further - the DELIBERATE creation of fire in a lab does require intelligence - but there is NO requirement for " fire " to be intelligent

and fire [ of un-specified intelligence ] can be generated by natural process - ie lightening , chemical decomposition etc etc etc

reply to post by Metaphysique

Urble burble wurble

No need to withdraw my statement yet, I see.

This argument always falls apart under the assumption that time is linear, which it isn't. The future continues to "contaminate" the past (and vice-versa) with energy and mass structure and I would guess even life. But I understand how hard it is to think beyond that old cause and effect notion.

Abiogenesis is such a horrible term. 'Interesting chemistry' is far more descriptive.

Anyway, to test abiogenesis in a lab we'd need the right chemicals under the right conditions. Perfectly feasible in principle.

To test ID, we'd need to put a designer in the lab. Somewhat less feasible.

Which leads one to conclude that the application of Occam's razor would strongly favour abiogenesis over ID.

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

I am aware of the problem a creator poses in terms of his own conception - dont #ing patronise me.

Tsk, tsk. Such language.

That isn't the fatal flaw. Work it out. As I_A said, it isn't that hard.

I'll give you a clue. Here:

It's like, if we were to eventually created a virtual universe as complex as ours, and we plugged people in or coded self awareness (depending on what you believe consciousness to be). Eventually, our created virtual race will ponder its origin of existence, perhaps due to nonsensical periods in their history, or unbelievable finds in their science. They may arrive at the idea of a creator, but certain virtual people will turn around and say 'but who created them?!'. As this shows, it's a valid question...

There you go. The fatal flaw is right in there. Spotted it yet?

Ah, I think I understand how I got myself into this mess now. I'm assuming you are suggesting to me that to create a universe such as this requires a universe just like it previously to 'give birth' to those like us who will go on to create us. Hence, one is forced to accept that this path must forever move backwards until infinite.

However, the difference I have in looking at it is that in my assumptions, I do NOT require a current-state like universe to have preceeded us to allow a creator. I am completely open to the idea that consciousness/intelligence can exist in other forms and that we may never know the true extent of how many layers build up this reality. Therefore, I have several options that defeat this apparent logical fallacy;

1 - Like I said before, we can still be a created universe, BUT, the original universe spawned in the sense we imagine ours to have done (accidental/spontaenous - big bang), and intelligent life evolved and created us a virtual universe. Although one may turn around and say 'but what is the point of that then?', I have to say there ISN'T A SPECIFIC POINT OR REASONING to this, it is simply a POSSIBILITY. And it is a possibility that based on HUMAN LOGIC would suggest we are MORE LIKELY TO BE LIVING in one of those simulated universes. Once again, make of it what you will. If you think there is a fatal flaw to that thinking, you should go write a letter to the Oxford Professor who wrote a wonderful paper on this exact topic - I'm sure he'll fulfil your hunger for ego-based intellectual arguing ;]. Just playing. One way this could make more sense is that if the 'original' universe found themselves to be continuous/analog (i.e no discrete breakdown in spacetime) and we are a digitilized universe.

There's several reasons I propose this - stuff like the Double Slit experiment (that is not a naturally occuring feature of the universe - I find that VERY HARD to believe but I try my best to do), the fact we WILL do this in the future, and many many personal experiences and friends experiences involving ridiculous events such as shapeshifting objects, appearing/disappearing objects 60 ft above us in the sky, an abduction of my friend involving Mantis entities and so forth and so forth. These are some of my closest friends btw, who I've known and chilled with most weeks for 10 + years. We do NOT lie to eachother about these things, and the fact we have shared some of these experiences reinforces our trust. These events have led me to be open to the idea that our universe is either superseded by another one, or it is parallel to one, or there is definitely advanced E.T races out there. I try my best to say to myself 'ah its just our brains playing tricks on us' but that argument seems genuinely stupid at this point considering the quantity, magnitude and content of such events.

2 - Another option is that whatever preceeded this universe and contained the 'creator' of ours is incomprehendable to us as humans, as we can only think in terms of what we know. That is to say, just because from our perspective it appears that for intelligence or desire to manifest, one requires a human physical biological body - we must remember we still have VERY little understanding of consciousness, how it arose and how it can manifest in such a manner. It is entirely possible that consciousness or a 'will' or a thought or an existence preceeded the physical. Of course, if you believe consciousness is nothing but electrical signals pinging around in that blob of matter you call a brain, than this argument is completely wasted and pointless and you will not be able to truly appreciate the possibility. I have heard many a great physicist and scientist propose consciousness predating matter (however counter-intuitive that may first sound), so it isn't merely a crackpot formulation of my thoughts.

There are other options, but to be honest it is a pointless argument in all anyway. It is a personal thing. I simply enjoy pondering on these things. Do you hold no specific personal curiosities or theories about the universe? Rather than slating me and others off for this discussion, bring something else to the table, enlighten me with your thoughts rather than my shortcomings.

Do you believe it was an accident or is there some sort of process you put it down to? Do you believe there are an infinite amount of universes (I mean, without this assumption, it is PRETTY HARD to explain how the fundamental forces of nature arose during the big bang and how they happened to fall into almost perfect values for this to continue)? What are your ponderings on the whole matter? Are you truly satisfied with our current explanation of everything and how it came to be? If you are, I am a jealous man to an extent. I ask out of curiosity at this point, because I can see you are intelligent to a degree.

Honestly mate, if I could just turn around to myself and accept this as an accident I flipping would, straight away. I did so for about 18 years, and when I finally recaptured that magical amazement towards life I became so much happier and care-free. I haven't been depressed in years and progressed successfully in my career path. But at the same time, it haunts me everyday. I could just be out for a smoke break at work and I'll stare at the horizon like 'no, no...no....this....couldn't have just manifested accidentally...how? how did it have THIS potential?'. I can't explain it. I'm glad I have that feeling back, but at the same time it can sometimes cause a very surreal experience of life.

I agree with you to an extent about not wanting God to exist. I don't believe it would definitely be an all-loving, all-caring entitiy or force, if he/she/it/they exist.
Who knows anyway. One thing I do seem to strongly know is that there is slightly more than meets the eye to this place (well, that's a scientific fact but you know what I mean).

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

appologies for starting with the last response , but :

your answer raises an interesting question :

in your world view is an intelligent designer only required for an intelligent organism / result ? ?

as its very easy to read into your response , the assumption that plant life , uni-cellular life and geological structures can all arise from naturalistic processes , but intelligent life needs a alledged designer

could you please clarify ?

dam - edit to add :

further - the DELIBERATE creation of fire in a lab does require intelligence - but there is NO requirement for " fire " to be intelligent

and fire [ of un-specified intelligence ] can be generated by natural process - ie lightening , chemical decomposition etc etc etc

edit on 18-11-2013 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)

well personally i am undecided on whats going on.

i think its a paradox.

you cant have life without intelegence

and u cant have intellegence without life

the only way i can explain it is if intellegence and consious either predate the bigbang (and may acually have caused it wirh the first particle/wave collapse aka hyper inflation)

or intellegence is a fundamental to our reality like time/space/consoiusness

or maybe both

3 things that define our reality that arent tangable or really knowable (yet?)

although i am partial to to the everything happening at once concept and that time is just an illusion nature uses to draw out that one infintesimal moment of creation/existance/destrustion




eta but isnt that the point fire of an unkown intellegence can be created at random thru natural orocesse

but fire of a know intellegance can be created in a lab

and more to the point what happens when we cant duplicate life? real life not ventner reprograming