Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[Gordon]

If abiogenesis can be divorced from any common-descent evolutionary theories, why can't the nature of a creator be a separate study from life being created?

In which you are begging the question, which is yet another logical fallacy.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The jury remains out on abiogenesis, and no doubt investigations continue. That in the absence of knowledge you can't envisage abiogenesis without 'god' is a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

Once again, the prejudicing of the investigation is laid bare for all to see. Before mentioning God, I said this:

Ok. So why the creator route? Human beings design and make things. What are the attributes of these? Is there anything comparable in the world? In my opinion, absolutely. Having a creator therefore solves the something from nothing problem.

So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?

These are emergent properties that arise from the evolution of species - that you can't envisage the emergence of these traits without 'god' is also a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

Which is just another way of solving any problem by saying, evolution-did-it. Hardly evidence-based. And Christians here are being criticized for their faith???

[wigginhall]

It is an inherent problem with a philosophy that takes a bottom-up approach (e.g. explanation for diversity of life), rather than a top down.

If you take a top-down approach, that which is created has the ability to diversify. There is no which came first? The chicken or the egg (seed or the plant) problem to solve.

If you take a bottom-up approach with gains of functionality coming from something simpler (e.g. compare the functionality in and of human beings or plants with the single common ancestor all life is supposed to have descended from), then you are getting something for nothing, a notion contradicted in Physics.

I'm not following that last point.   If simple things give rise to complex things, how is that something for nothing?   

The explanation of diversity as being top down, is not really an explanation.   Well, if it is, explain how the creator developed mammals during the Triassic period. 

[floo]

Once again, the prejudicing of the investigation is laid bare for all to see. Before mentioning God, I said this:
So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?
Which is just another way of solving any problem by saying, evolution-did-it. Hardly evidence-based. And Christians here are being criticized for their faith???

There is one heck of a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for the creation tale, for which there is zero evidence.

[Gordon]

So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?

You don't have a 'route' to go down: your reasoning is repeatedly fallacious, as above, which has been pointed out to you frequently.

Which is just another way of solving any problem by saying, evolution-did-it. Hardly evidence-based. And Christians here are being criticized for their faith???

Here we have several fallacies arranged in row: a straw man, your personal incredulity, a non sequitur and your argument from ignorance. 

If you are going to try a philosophical approach you'll need to bone up on those fallacies.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword's claim was about something from nothing.   Complexity arises from simpler origins.

For me, there is a difference between something becoming more complex and something gaining something. The gain is the something from nothing problem.

Example: You give me a black and white photo. I do something to the photo and give it back to you. You notice that it is now a colour photo, with all the right colours in the right places. That photo has gained something that couldn't come from what was there.

If you start from a single common ancestor and jump to human beings, what gains do you have?
- The senses
- brain, eyes, nose, ears, heart, lungs, kidneys, ...
- the ability to make moral choices
- intelligence
- male and female
- sexual reproduction

Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.

[Dicky Underpants]

Before mentioning God, I said this:
So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?

And for those who have "gone down this route", and find that Gordon's et al. position is the valid one? For those who found "the mystical" (let alone the exclusively Christian view) was a wild-goose chase?
Didn't do it right? or something...

[Dicky Underpants]

Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.

Aside from the confusion of abiogenesis with the process of evolution itself, you need to be reminded that for believers there is always the question: "If God made the world, why did he make it so badly"

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The Theory of Evolution  deals with much of your list.

Not in my opinion. Evolution works with what is already there. It doesn't magic things out of nothing!

I will comment on the moral point:the word ‘morality’ is simply a label to cover behaviours that were advantageous and pleasing to our species and assisted their survival. When civilisation and language development formed them into a code they simply became a set of rules, but that was not the start of morality.

i.e. evolution of the gaps

No, it simply adds the question of infinite regression – who created the creator, etc.

Which assumes that God is created, i.e. had a beginning.

Incidentally, infinite regressions don't seem to be a problem elsewhere, e.g.

- plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
- I was given birth to by my mother, who was given birth to by her mother, who was given birth to by her mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...

Are you seeing now how the things that you claim happen in some evolutionary theories have to be taken by faith, yet the things that contradict it are observable by all?

why do you wish to suspend your disbelief to such an extent to believe that a person can be resurrected?

Because it requires even more faith to believe that nothing can cause something, and that's the alternative with the conclusions based on your naturalistic philosophy.

Do you think that people 2,000 years ago were better informed than we are today?

I wouldn't knock everything about 2000+ years ago. How old is Pythagoras' Theorem or Archimedes' Principle?

Incidentally, it's interesting that the Bible contains a falsification test for the Christian faith, yet 2000 years later, not a single atheist can give me an example of how their naturalistic philosophy can be falsified. Hmmm

[Gordon]

For me, there is a difference between something becoming more complex and something gaining something. The gain is the something from nothing problem.

Example: You give me a black and white photo. I do something to the photo and give it back to you. You notice that it is now a colour photo, with all the right colours in the right places. That photo has gained something that couldn't come from what was there.

If you start from a single common ancestor and jump to human beings, what gains do you have?
- The senses
- brain, eyes, nose, ears, heart, lungs, kidneys, ...
- the ability to make moral choices
- intelligence
- male and female
- sexual reproduction

Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.

Amongst the various fallacies on display here there is a glorious argument from ignorance: yours.

[wigginhall]

Aside from the confusion of abiogenesis with the process of evolution itself, you need to be reminded that for believers there is always the question: "If God made the world, why did he make it so badly"

There is also the issue of how he made it, or makes it.   If he did, then how he produce the shift from reptiles to mammals?  Just saying, 'just like that', doesn't count as an explanation.

[Dicky Underpants]

Incidentally, it's interesting that the Bible contains a falsification test for the Christian faith, yet 2000 years later, not a single atheist can give me an example of how their naturalistic philosophy can be falsified. Hmmm

Could you specify the Christian 'falsification test'?

[Gordon]

Incidentally, it's interesting that the Bible contains a falsification test for the Christian faith....

Do tell - and remember to include the methodology to be applied should I wish to attempt to falsify Christianity.

[Dicky Underpants]

There is also the issue of how he made it, or makes it.   If he did, then how he produce the shift from reptiles to mammals?  Just saying, 'just like that', doesn't count as an explanation.

At best, you'd have to say he builds on what has gone before, even though there have been obvious design faults which should have been rectified long ago. God is definitely behind the newer versions of Windows

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.

You seem unable to accept the fact that there are some who have thought about things and have reached a different conclusion to you.

You and some of the other atheists here could make things a lot easier for yourselves if you could just come up with one example of how your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy can be falsified, but you won't.

To all the Christians (particularly those who have been posting here long before I came along), consider this: The next time an atheist here mentions any fallacy, circular reasoning, etc., (particularly when used to dismiss the contents of an entire post) apply it to their naturalistic precommitment. You may well find two things.
1. The claim is incorrectly used against religious belief.
2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.

[Dicky Underpants]

2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.

On this at least, your thinking is very binary. Not every atheist had a 'precommitment', but may end up with a naturalistic view eventually.

[wigginhall]

Which atheists have a naturalistic precommitment? 

[Gordon]

The next time an atheist here mentions any fallacy, circular reasoning, etc., (particularly when used to dismiss the contents of an entire post) apply it to their naturalistic precommitment.

Ironically this reads like a textbook example of the reification fallacy being applied to your own fallacious strawman representation of atheism.

You may well find two things.
1. The claim is incorrectly used against religious belief.

Religious belief is riddled with fallacies, as your own posts clearly demonstrate.

2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.

Which, as noted above, is your own fallacious representation of atheism.

If you are going to try philosophy you need to understand fallacies properly. It seems to me you've concluded 'God' and are now thrashing around to construct your own versions philosophical arguments that fit your preferred conclusion of 'God', which is of course begging the question by assuming your conclusion.

[wigginhall]

Gordon's point there strikes me as quite common.   I mean, that people start off with 'God', for whatever reason, and then look around for arguments to support it.   You could argue, of course, that we all do that - for example, I can't stand Theresa May, in a kind of instinctive way, so then I look for reasons, like she gurns.

But what is weird is the claim that such and such arguments lead us to God belief.  Really? 

[Enki]

For me, there is a difference between something becoming more complex and something gaining something. The gain is the something from nothing problem.

Example: You give me a black and white photo. I do something to the photo and give it back to you. You notice that it is now a colour photo, with all the right colours in the right places. That photo has gained something that couldn't come from what was there.

If you start from a single common ancestor and jump to human beings, what gains do you have?
- The senses
- brain, eyes, nose, ears, heart, lungs, kidneys, ...
- the ability to make moral choices
- intelligence
- male and female
- sexual reproduction

Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information

[wigginhall]

There is an old saying that camouflage and mimicry in animals show how the environment can be literally painted onto the organism's body, for example, the wasp spider, which (gasp) looks like a wasp.   But this can be widened out - natural selection permits information from the environment to be added to the organism, or its genome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.

What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.

What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.

And for me at least that’s a bit dull.

I will look in from time-to-time, and if someone posts an argument that I do find interesting I’ll engage with it. For now though I feel I haven’t much more to say without becoming dull myself, and that would never do.

My best wishes to you all.

Hillsides valedictory is a paeon to the naturalistic assumptions he has preached on this board and so his great and hazy distance from the very basis of Christian belief was self imposed.

Blue was, IMHO, only too willing to see his own position as ''true for everyone'' as exemplified in his often announced catch phrase ''can we move on now?'' to which I am glad non Hillside worshipping voices delivered a resounding ''no''.

[torridon]

You and some of the other atheists here could make things a lot easier for yourselves if you could just come up with one example of how your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy can be falsified, but you won't.

You are just guilty of your of committing the NPF fallacy yet again. Naturalism, if you insist on -isms, is just a default position unless some justification can be found for supernaturalism.  It is not for us to justify the default position, rather the burden lies with those claiming something exceptional.

[wigginhall]

Naturalism would be falsified by something non-natural.   However, this raises the thorny issue of what that is, and how it would be known, detected, identified, and so on.   Any ideas? 

[SusanDoris]

If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.

The difference is that cells, however they began, existed and persisted in an unbroken line for the billions of years since life started and show no sign of ending. They are facts and just because you cannot cope with the idea that evolution from single cells to complex mammals can take place during those billions of years does not invalidate the TofE..

As soon as you wish to bring God into it, you are faced with the problem of providing just one observation on which to base a hypothesis.