[Algernon]

Isn’t it a given that Christianity contains beliefs, including core beliefs, that are unfalsifiable?

That said, the best that Christian Apologetics can do is to show that it is coherent as a WHOLE. If that cannot be shown, then it cannot be shown to be a “reasonable faith”. No matter how many of the individual beliefs can be shown to be coherent in and of themselves, if it cannot be shown to be coherent as a WHOLE, then it is not a reasonable faith to hold.

As a WHOLE, Christianity does not hold water. Christianity does not hold up to scrutiny when held under the light of truth. By and large, Christian apologists suffer from a lack of intellectual honesty. The only intellectually honest Christians that I have come across are the ones who recognize that it is by faith and only faith that they believe what they believe. Of course, even they cannot reasonably believe that holding such a belief is reasonable. It is not by “reason” that they hold it.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

Christianity is fairly consistent. If the people were hoodwinked, it would’ve required a “team effort,” with Jesus included in the team then Paul working off of what He spoke. You have said it is inconsistent in your point of view, and I’m wondering what you mean.

[Algernon]

There is a wide gulf between the underlying concepts espoused by Jesus and the underlying concepts of Christianity. For example, Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. The unrighteous are “saved” by making themselves righteous. At a minimum righteousness requires that the individual does not commit sin. Compare and contrast that against the underlying concepts of Christianity.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

I see. So Paul made a connection that Jesus did not support, that because there was no hope for sinful man, God had laid Himself down. I’d agree Jesus left this area vague, but do you have scripture supporting the premise Jesus asked for labor in self-reformation?

[Algernon]

So Paul made a connection that Jesus did not support, that because there was no hope for sinful man, God had laid Himself down. I’d agree Jesus left this area vague, but do you have scripture supporting the premise Jesus asked for labor in self-reformation?

Paul’s concept is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. Jesus not only did not support it, He repeatedly gave every indication to the contrary. As but a few examples:

Matthew 16

24Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 27“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

John 5

28“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Luke 13

23And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, 24“Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25“Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ 26“Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; 27and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’ 28“In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.

The above concepts are logical extensions of concepts introduced by late OT prophets such as Isaiah and Ezekiel. Then along came Paul who did a 180.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

Well, I appreciate all this. I think there are other utterances from Jesus that might support Paul, for instance John 10:7-11:

7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Nonetheless you have found solid words which can be construed as echoing the Buddha, in giving mankind the real route to salvation. Christianity exists by ignoring these words.

[Algernon]

There’s no reasonable way for John 10:7-11 to support Paul. Can it be corrupted to support Paul? Sure. It’s what many Christians do. If you believe that there is a reasonable way, by all means make your best case.

Christianity exists by ignoring those words and so many more. It’s an exceedingly dishonest system of belief. Even worse, this methodology bleeds over into their secular beliefs as well. As you’ve been repeatedly witnessing of late.

From <https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1559&gt;

Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. these palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart.

—-Thomas Jefferson

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

Right, I’d agree it is by allusion and not specific remark. Yet there are troubles in some of them anyway, as if anyone could expect to be marched to Heaven soon. Jesus stayed in a one-life context, which was part of the consistency of His revelation, intended for sinners. The reasoning (corruption) looks like this, promising to lay down His life sounds like there will be an immediate benefit. But it could also be interpreted as proof of God’s care. It sounds like just go through the door, believe in Him, but there might be a hallway first.

I like this quote from Jefferson, but had to look up coryphaeus:

The coryphaeus spoke for all the rest, whenever the chorus took part in the action, in quality of a person of the drama, during the course of the acts.  

Jefferson was wise. I’ve always thought so. So indeed has been Christianity, following Paul.

[Algernon]

Jefferson was wise. I’ve always thought so. So indeed has been Christianity, following Paul.

Please tell me that what you actually mean is, “So indeed Christianity has been following Paul.

The reasoning (corruption) looks like this, promising to lay down His life sounds like there will be an immediate benefit. But it could also be interpreted as proof of God’s care. It sounds like just go through the door, believe in Him, but there might be a hallway first.

In order to truly understand Jesus’ words requires holistic analysis, instead of the typical Christian approach of interpreting individual verses/passages as if they were each said in a vacuum.

The “door” is a metaphor for the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel.

See what I quoted earlier from John 5 and Luke 13 in conjunction with the following:

John 12

47“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

It is His words that judge. His words divide “those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life” from “those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5). The ones who enter through the “narrow door” are “those who did the good deeds”. Thus, one must “Strive to enter through the narrow door”(Luke 13). Also note that it is by HIS word. Not the word of Paul. Not the word of other NT writers. Not the word of anyone other than Jesus.

Similarly with “lay down his life”. See what I quoted earlier from Matthew 13. That in conjunction with other passages make it clear. Jesus calls for ALL to “lose their life” thus making themselves righteous as He laid down His life and made Himself righteous. Jesus calls for all to become “sons of God” as He was a “son of God”. Jesus calls for all to become “one with God” as He was “one with God”.

The interconnectedness of Jesus’ use of the same metaphor across completely different passages is a thing of beauty.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Algernon.

[jayceeii]

“So indeed has been Christianity, following Paul,” indicates that since its inception, Christianity was following Paul. I used to call it Paulianity; but that hasn’t caught on.

AG: In order to truly understand Jesus’ words requires holistic analysis, instead of the typical Christian approach of interpreting individual verses/passages as if they were each said in a vacuum.

JC: Not only this but a global context. In fact such an analysis is not possible without new revelations. To connect the dots a higher truth than the world has seen must be revealed.

AG: The “door” is a metaphor for the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel.

JC: I’d interpret it that the Lord is the focus of bhakti yoga; but in general this might resolve to a sufficiently divine figure. The Lord may remain too distant from humans.

AG: See what I quoted earlier from John 5 and Luke 13 in conjunction with the following:

John 12 47“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

It is His words that judge.

JC: If this is to have meaning, it has to be interpreted that Jesus laid out the requirements for salvation, but that these would be thought easy although it is difficult. As He laid out the words, therefore, a door was opened through which any could enter. But they cannot. In particular, Christians don’t rise to authentic belief, denying God can embody as He wills. In practice this means they cut themselves off from the real way He could reach them. Particularly if there were something important He needed to add they won’t hear it.

AG: His words divide “those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life” from “those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5).

JC: Yes, but I don’t see any rising to good deeds today. I see no one justified, anywhere. What I say has occurred, Christians are cut off. They are in the Invisible God’s hands.

AG: The ones who enter through the “narrow door” are “those who did the good deeds”.

JC: Right, and there aren’t any. Are you claiming this? You do not meet my standards.

AG: Thus, one must “Strive to enter through the narrow door”(Luke 13).

JC: Yes, and none are striving except for what is natural for them. Some will be allowed to continue, likely yourself and almost all here at the forum, as I have said several times.

AG: Also note that it is by HIS word. Not the word of Paul. Not the word of other NT writers. Not the word of anyone other than Jesus.

JC: Sure. But only the Invisible God is fit to judge. The Lord is generally friendly to all. Only after it is done the Lord will say, “All is as it should be.” The Lord is the Face, and the Holy Spirit the Hands, of the Father. But the Lord could save some if they’d listen.

AG: Similarly with “lay down his life”. See what I quoted earlier from Matthew 13. That in conjunction with other passages make it clear. Jesus calls for ALL to “lose their life” thus making themselves righteous as He laid down His life and made Himself righteous.

JC: Laying down the life is at its best an analogy for selfless labor for the benefit of the main. But if that type of effort is natural there is no feeling of sacrifice. Jesus said this to humans since it is upon them to sacrifice desire as Buddha related. This is justification.

AG: Jesus calls for all to become “sons of God” as He was a “son of God”.

JC: Ha, in “Wake of the Red Witch,” John Wayne was said to be a son of God. Believe it?

AG: Jesus calls for all to become “one with God” as He was “one with God”.

JC: This won’t be happening unless we interpret your quotation marks liberally, that “one with God” would mean unity of purpose with God up above, from the creaturely plane. Jesus is not one with God, He is God, as Swedenborg explained. We don’t speak of a union when there was no separation. The Lord is the literal, living extension from God.

AG: The interconnectedness of Jesus’ use of the same metaphor across completely different passages is a thing of beauty.

JC: It has taken me time to admit it, but Paul’s consistent and persuasive interpretation of Jesus is also a thing of beauty, if the purpose was to build civilization. He knew what he was doing, one piece of evidence that he said if the resurrection is false then it is all false.

[Algernon]

Why have you taken to addressing my latest post pretty much one line at a time? In doing that, the overarching line of thought escapes you. As such, it makes it impossible to for you to understand the higher level concepts that are being conveyed. I’m used to Christians doing this, but that’s the way many of them process the world. It effectively renders them incapable of understanding complex issues. It’s one of the reasons that they relate to Trump’s simplistic demagoguery: “Bird brain”, “Build a wall”. But why are you doing it?

In fact such an analysis is not possible without new revelations.

You’ve got it backward. “New revelations” are almost always the product of holistic analysis. Much of my career was spent understanding complex problem domains. I consistently brought a depth of understanding to the table unmatched by others. It’s a failing of academia. It isn’t taught, so few develop the skills to do it well. Most don’t do it at all. Or even know to do it.

[jayceeii]

AG: Why have you taken to addressing my latest post pretty much one line at a time?

JC: Sentences are all we have to communicate in this venue. Without examining your sentences I would only be “listening to myself,” reading what you write to confirm myself. By examining them I try to pull any meaning you generate from your perspective.

AG: In doing that, the overarching line of thought escapes you.

JC: No. Never. It is only in careful examination of each sentence that a total meaning can emerge. If you think you see such a meaning without examining, you are not allowing the ideas of the other full play within your mind. As for presentation, there should be harmony between the individual sentences and the overview. The whole isn’t apart from the parts. To take meaning apart from the parts is to presume what the other has not communicated, nor have you established a common understanding, without the parts.

AG: As such, it makes it impossible to for you to understand the higher level concepts that are being conveyed.

JC: If you think I have not understood, it is the time for new avenues of explanation since the old ones did not succeed. To recriminate, “You have not understood,” does not push the conversation forward, instead it is a disorienting element that deepens misunderstanding. I’d repeat the overall meaning must emerge from individual meaning. The idea an overview can be gained by not looking closely, defeats the idea of overview.

AG: I’m used to Christians doing this, but that’s the way many of them process the world.

JC: You say I am not responding, but I say you are not responding that it will not be enough to take Jesus by Himself, to understand religion on the planet. God has appeared many times, with many stories, as Hinduism allows but Christianity denies. Each story is self-consistent, but between them there are barriers to which there seem to be no keys.

AG: It effectively renders them incapable of understanding complex issues.

JC: This is also a distracting element, to start comparing me to Christians, as if your only mental function is to categorize, not to analyze individually. This brush is too broad, and you have moved onto another topic, the troubles of Christians, interesting in its own light. As for the specific remark, it is the very failure to examine individually, that leads to inability to apprehend complexity, which by its nature contains many individual aspects.

AG: It’s one of the reasons that they relate to Trump’s simplistic demagoguery: “Bird brain”, “Build a wall”. But why are you doing it?

JC: In short you seem to be arguing for some form of direct communication without using sentences, but such ideas are unreal. How exactly am I supposed to understand without looking at what you say? How are you supposed to communicate an overview? You have totally reversed the situation, for examining individual sentences is the right way. You say Christians do this too, hence getting lost, but this is because the sentences they examine are not intended to provide an individual overview apart from all religions. Your attempt at an overview conflicts with mine. You say there is one there but I say it falls apart since Jesus spoke too vaguely. Show me sentences leading to your overview.

“In fact such an analysis is not possible without new revelations.”

AG: You’ve got it backward. “New revelations” are almost always the product of holistic analysis.

JC: By new revelations I mean from God or His messengers, which should be obvious. This is another grievous fault of Christianity, addressed by Jesus in the parable of the vineyard owner. Christians not only cut themselves off from the Lord by insisting He cannot do again what their religion is based on Him doing once, taking on a human body, but they also only consider ancient prophets, maintaining no avenues for modern ones.

AG: Much of my career was spent understanding complex problem domains.

JC: The solution to gaining a common overview between individuals must be in sentences examined. To say there is another way is begging the question, refusing to allow logic to address the issue. Perhaps when some examine sentences they get lost, but there is still no other solution for them not getting lost, but examining sentences. In the religions the sentences are self-consistent but misleading. If sentences which are not misleading are presented, particularly by an authority, these may be misinterpreted and therefore the overview still not obtained even though it is pointed to authentically. That’s a different situation. And it may not be possible to give a suitable overview to man soon.

AG: I consistently brought a depth of understanding to the table unmatched by others.

JC: Perhaps, but you are here positing some other means of obtaining common overviews than communicating through sentences, which I would say is non sequitur. You throw down the Christians for isolating sentences, but expect there is some cure besides more sentences. What is that? If you cannot communicate this, then you are yourself isolated.

AG: It’s a failing of academia. It isn’t taught, so few develop the skills to do it well. Most don’t do it at all. Or even know to do it.

JC: Again, this is resolving to something like magic or prejudice. You expect others to magically arrive at your conclusions without your needing to communicate what these are, or in some nebulous way above the sentences, expecting others to read between your lines. Please expound on what you mean here. I’d suggest what we are encountering is different conclusions by different minds for the same groups of sentences; different and conflicting overviews. But to bring two or more minds together in a common overview is something you aren’t addressing if you think there is a magic way it is done without more sentences. What kind of skills do you mean, if not expecting others to think just like you?

[James]

I would argue that theism is unfalsifiable (all forms of it). Other than that, I have no disagreement with your overall summary.

[Fred]

@James:”Just because a particular apologetic response (eg, to the problem of evil) is able to make sense of certain theological problems in a coherent way and cannot be demonstrated false, it does not follow from this alone that it is not mistaken and should be embraced.”

Apologetics is not an epistemic quest for truth; it is aimed at defending what one already believes – defeating alleged “proofs” that the beliefs are false.

I’m sure professionals, line William Craig, understand this. But many of Craig’s devotees (such as we’ve encountered on this forum for years) don’t get this, and mistakenly treat those apologetic arguments as “proofs” of their beliefs.

[Pater]

I think that most of Craig’s arguments are intended to provide probabilistic warrant, rather than being offered as “proofs”. As such, if something is more probable than any of the alternatives, one would be justified to believe it. How does that change your assessment?

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Pater.

[Fred]

If they’re intended to be probabilistic, they do a poor job of it. Comparisons to alternatives are weak strawmen, at best.

[Pater]

Do you have any examples?

[Fred]

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Leibniz’ Cosmological Argument

OMV Argument for God

His Historical Argument for the Resurrection is indeed an IBE argument, but it’s the worst argument of all.

The FTA is more or less an IBE argument, and I showed you how it failed (but you skedaddled from that thread)

[Pater]

I mean examples of weak strawman arguments that you claimed.

[Fred]

OK: the historical argument for the Resurrection. The strawmen are the alternative explanations for an empty tomb, and the problem is that it presupposes the truth of Mark’s story of an honorable burial and discovery of an empty tomb, and that the other Gospels (which copied from Mark) comprises supporting evidence.

The OMV argument uses, as a strawman, the claim that if there are no OMVs then morality is an arbitrary social convention.

I remind you that it was you who claimed the deistic arguments are probabilistic. Can you point me to a probabilistic defense of the Kalam?

[Pater]

Fred said: “The OMV argument uses, as a strawman, the claim that if there are no OMVs then morality is an arbitrary social convention.”

And why would you call that a strawman?

[Fred]

You’re right, it’s actually a false dichotomy.

How about that probabilistic Kalam?

[Pater]

https://crossexamined.org/kalam-overview-defense-2/

crossexamined.org

The Kalam: An Overview & Defense

By Ronald Cram William Lane Craig is famous for resurrecting and defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). The argument appeals to both philosophical and scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe. If the Kalam is sound, it seems to … Continue reading

[Fred]

Wow. That’s indeed a probabilistic argument. A terrible one, but it is probabilistic. Do you see any of the problems in it?

[Pater]

Im sensing you may have technical objections with the form of the argument rather than the argument itself?

[Fred]

Many problems. For example, the probabilities are arbitrary, it’s comparing specific scientific hypotheses to a metaphysical alternative (apples/oranges), no probability is assigned to God’s existence.

[Pater]

I see. The “God probability” is at the bottom.

[Fred]

That’s the ostensible conclusion. What’s the prior probability:

– that materialism is false (i.e. that there exists anything immaterial)? [the article claims this is “uncontroversial”. I beg to differ]

– that an unembodied mind exists?

– that omniscience exists?

The conjunction of those three things seems pretty low. And of course, you will disagree. Therein is one of the problems – there’s no objective means of assigning epistemic probabilities – so such an argument can never be more than a rationalization of one’s prior beliefs.

Consider this:

” this idea is problematic for most physicists because the theory makes
an untestable claim. Scientifically untestable claims are not
scientific.”

Double standard: implying a materialist solution must be testable but a supernatural one needn’t be. Of course, he’s not really comparing a materialist metaphysical answer to a supernatural metaphysical answer; he’s comparing specific scientific hypotheses to a metaphysical answer. The argument is a complete mess.

[Pater]

I personally don’t find metaphysical logical probability arguments to be real strongly convincing. They augment the fine tuning and other ID arguments in a cumulative case. Apart from my faith experience, I don’t think I could ever buy into the whole spectrum of natural explanations for existence, life, consciousness, rationality, diversity, good and evil, and – you get the idea. I find the tortured explanations to be utterly unbelievable, and should be rejected by any rational person, regardless of their faith or non-faith beliefs.

[Fred]

We started this exchange when you said:

“I think that most of Craig’s arguments are intended to provide probabilistic warrant”

Now you say:

“I personally don’t find metaphysical logical probability arguments to be real strongly convincing.”

If unconvincing, then they don’t provide warrant – right?

[Pater]

If you ask me a question and I say “probably”, that means I’m not strongly convinced. And nothing I say or think affects in any way the intent of Dr Craig’s arguments. So you pounced on a false discrepancy. Providing warrant is a pretty low bar in my understanding.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by  Pater.

[Fred]

In epistemology, warrant is what’s needed to establish a belief as knowledge- so it’s a high bar. You seem to be using the term differently.

[Pater]

And you seem to equate “not strongly convincing” with “unconvincing”. Are you as strongly bored with this as I am?

[Fred]

Yep. Good night, Pater.

[Pater]

Right you too.

[Pater]

@ the OP

I think that Intelligent Design is a strong candidate to defeat your analysis. Most objections to ID make the facile claim that it’s a God of the gaps argument. I say facile (lazy, disingenuous, manipulative, unscientific, etc) because it purposely ignores the obvious difference. ID is real evidence of intelligence at work. We easily recognize when an observable object is man made. We don’t pick up a book, for example, and question where the information in that book came from – we know that a human thought of the words and formed them into sentences. Words made of letters, which are symbols that we use to communicate intelligent thoughts. Letters, words, sentences, books. We don’t suppose that the letters arranged themselves by accident or by other necessary natural forces.

But let’s suppose that the letters and the words COULD be produced by a random process. How did they get into the book form? I think a lot of people just ignore the fact that molecular machines are composed of several exquisitely fit functional components that rely on other molecular machines of similar complexity to all work together. It’s not a 2 or 3 step process.

It’s dozens of necessary cooperations, or the whole thing fails.

Necessary for survival, but in no wise necessary, as in, couldn’t have happened otherwise due to necessary forces. In the opposite of necessary in that sense. Unlikely by dozens of orders of magnitude.

We know that the book came from an intelligent mind. It’s perfectly and compellingly logical to agree that the intelligent information in living systems also came from a mind. And thats just one facet of ID theory.

[Mammal]

That’s weak, Pater. Weird that you keep on insisting there must be intelligence behind the multitude of outcomes that nature produces. Why would ID also bring about cancer, Covid, Altzheimers, muscular dystrophies, etc. as part of the end product? No man. Try again.

[Pater]

Ad hominem = White flag.

Why wouldn’t you give the natural source for the information in a “simple cell”?

[Mammal]

If you explain how these diseases and defects are compatible with ID, we can discuss the first cells. Not sure what exactly you want to know about it as there are many expert explanations available. You seem to hint that there is a gap in our knowledge for your designer to fit in, but I don’t really see that gap. Only if you prove that all of the existing hypotheses fall short and explain how a designer would have done it instead, does it become a topic for discussion. But first things first. ID and our defects..?

[Pater]

You want me to explain everything on both sides. Im asking you to explain one thing. Just a few words. Where does the information in DNA come from?

[Mammal]

You go first, then I’ll do my part.

[Pater]

I did go first. See below.

[Mammal]

As for your question and as I said, there are various plausible explanations. This one, afaik, represents the current school of thought:

https://www.encyclopedie-environnement.org/en/life/origin-of-the-first-cells-engineers-point-of-view/

encyclopedie-environnement.org

Origin of the first cells: the engineer's point of view - Encyclopedia of the Environment

To put an end to the eternal question of the chicken or the egg, discover what the scientific scenarios are regarding the origins of the first cells.

[Pater]

My purpose for participating on this thread is to give an answer to the OP. James offered his analysis that while apologetics often points to supernatural causes, we still don’t have incontrovertible evidence of who or what that supernatural cause is, which is a problem for apologetics. Even if we accept that God is behind it all, it’s a simple matter to redefine “god”, and postulate a good god/bad god scenario that expands our explanatory options. Your question is tangentially relevant, but I don’t want to stray too far on this thread into the incoherence of your science based ideology.

God created this world partly in order to reveal Himself, and to teach, equip, train, educate His created intelligent persons. He created this world to serve as a stage within which to participate in a love story. A story of good and evil, rebellion and redemption, abundant life and cruel death.

This world was meant to be temporary from the beginning. The bodies we are born in are daily wearing out, falling apart, becoming diseased and eventually dying. Each person is born within a physical context that God has deemed is perfect for their individual journey with all its benefits and handicaps. We each have the opportunity to maximize our own performance.

When the first of us decided to disobey God, death was introduced to God’s very good creation. And death has reigned ever since in whatever form it takes. Everyone dies. It may seem important to you that God be called to account for the form and circumstances of every death, because you have made the calculation that some deaths and some forms of living are “unfair”. We each have our challenges in life.

This was God’s plan from before He created. Refine an everlasting family in a fiery crucible that includes pain, suffering, disease and death. So it’s no surprise that we get sick and die. This life is over in an instant, and all the worries and cares of this world will soon be forgotten. But the good of it in all its forms will last forever.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by  Pater.

[Mammal]

Your explanation seems to be that we don’t know how God did it, we should simply believe that he designed us with flaws and defects so that some of us would suffer more than others (for some or other bizarre reason). And you think that is a better explanation as opposed to the evidence that we evolved naturally, where the flaws and defects are to be expected? I see no reason why we need a supernatural explanation for something that has all the telltale signs of natural causes.

[Pater]

Here are a few quotes from the citation you offered. I think everyone should read the entire thing with the words “by accident” and “accidentally” after every action sentence.

But for this thread I want to point out some of the quotes that mention coded information in some way.

“The sequence of macromolecules can be deciphered as a text written with an alphabet of twenty letters for proteins, and four for nucleic acids.”

“Comparing them with one another in the way Champollion used Rosetta stone to understand hieroglyphics allows us to recognize what is common and probably ancient in extant genomes.”

“The specificity of the amino acid sequence in peptides subsequently materialized when an RNA matrix imposed a strict succession order to the amino acid-loaded tRNAs. Finally, the three-dimensional folding of the RNA on itself, necessary for the generation of ribozymes, led to the discovery of the law of sequence complementarity (formation of a double helix in which nucleotides are complementary). Then, this law of complementarity, which associates a particular tRNA with a sequence of the RNA template, gradually crystallized into the form of a rigid correspondence between triplets of nucleotides and amino acids, giving rise to the amino acid-nucleotide cipher, generating the rule that forms the genetic code.”

“However, it also assumes that it is a common program that decides on their construction. This program is transmitted from generation to generation, unmodified (it replicates), while individual cells only reproduce (they are similar, not identical, to one another).”

“Some, later, gave rise to the exact replication of a structure associated to its functioning via a coding process.”

“The latter used RNA as an information template (primitive genes) rather than as a direct substrate for metabolism.”

So my question hasnt changed. We know that in every case, coded information comes from a mind. The question for you is, where did the coded information for life come from?

[Mammal]

Lol. We had this discussion a while back about this same so-called “code” and “program”. Still same context, there is no reference in the article to a designer or programmer. These are all natural processes being referred to.

[Pater]

Right. They don’t address the question at all, just like you.

And: “These are all natural processes being referred to.”

These are actually all speculations that have never been observed. In fact the available science indicates that most of them are not possible as described.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by  Pater.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by  Pater.

[Mammal]

You’ll have to be more specific. It is very easy for you to assert that this requires a higher hand, but you’ll have to back it up. What part of it seems impossible?

[Pater]

Actually its still your turn.

[Mammal]

The fact that you ended up saying the article doesn’t deal with the (hypothetical) origin of the information in the first cells just shows you still don’t what the so-called genetic code entails. We discussed this a while back, so there is little point.

[Pater]

This is probably the weakest, most transparent fail you’ve ever posted. Congrats.

This paper – “Emergence of life in an inflationary universe” starts the abstract with this statement:

“Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life”

I’m certain you won’t want to discuss since you don’t have a prayer of holding up your end, (especially since you don’t pray) but if you do, I can start the new thread.

[Mammal]

I don’t follow. That is not my citation. And that statement is an outdated one as that particular objection has since been laid to rest. You and I debated it a while back, I showed you where it was solved. You should keep up.

[Pater]

I know you aren’t following because you’re lost. You can grip onto whatever you tell yourself or you can read the paper I cited. I thought you’d be especially interested because it surrenders the possibility of an abiogenesis event in the visible universe (10^22 suns) but says it’s really possible if the universe is inflated larger by 78 orders of magnitude. Also, it takes as a given the capacity for RNA to replicate itself, although that’s never been demonstrated either.

But it does get some things right. The comment that if we ever find other life in our universe that it must have come about by a different mechanism than life on our planet is interesting.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 2 days ago by  Pater.

[Mammal]

No, that is not at all what that paper says. How on earth did you quote mine that? The paper does not say it is impossible, in fact it basically takes it for granted that it happened on Earth. It focuses on the statistical chance of a similar abiogenesis occurring elsewhere in our observable universe. That’s all it does.

Here is the link, why not read it properly?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0

nature.com

Emergence of life in an inflationary universe - Scientific Reports

Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life. A polymer longer than 40–100 nucleotides is necessary to expect a self-replicating activity, but the formation of such a … Continue reading

[Pater]

Mammal said: “No, that is not at all what that paper says. How on earth did you quote mine that? The paper does not say it is impossible, in fact it basically takes it for granted that it happened on Earth. It focuses on the statistical chance of a similar abiogenesis occurring elsewhere in our observable universe. That’s all it does.”

Okay. I’m going to be nice. Because it’s obvious you are clueless. The paper rates the odds as “negligible”, which means so minute thats it’s not worth considering. So yeah, they take it for granted that it happened, which you should have noted is perfectly circular. And they said, as I pointed out, if other life was found in our universe, we would be correct to assume that it wasn’t formed by a similar abiogenesis event.

But your real problem is that it focuses on the statistical chance in an inflationary universe, not the observable universe. Thats the whole point of it. So it’s easy to prove something in your fantasy world when you get to make up all the fantasy parameters, the ones on the graph you posted without understanding what it was.

Add to that the fantasy of RNA forming in significant length AND then replicating itself, which as I said has never been observed, and the whole ball of wax is an exercise in speculation, that admits it would never happen (again) in our known universe. But thats okay because we can take for granted it happened once. We are here, right?

[Mammal]

It was your citation, a rather meaningless and speculative statistical scenario that you misrepresented as being meaningful to abiogenesis on Earth, which it very clearly was not.

[Fred]

Pater: “The paper rates the odds as “negligible”, which means so minute thats it’s not worth considering.”

You took the phrase containing “negligible” out of context:

If life can emerge at least once in such a large volume, it is not in
contradiction with our observations of life on Earth, even if the
expected number of abiogenesis events is negligibly small within the
observable universe that contains only 10^22 stars.

That’s a lot of stars, and thus a lot of chances for abiogenesis to occur in the vicinity of one of them. Something that is low probability is a certainty to occur if there are a sufficiently high number of chances for it to occur. The purpose of the paper is to present the math that makes that case, and it seems you have missed that big picture.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  Fred.

[Pater]

What in the heck? I’m speechless. I mean seriously, this is laughable.

The purpose of the paper is to make the case that at least one abiogenesis event is statistically expected in a hypothetical inflationary universe of at least 10^100 sun-like stars. So, even if the likelihood is statistically negligible in the actual universe of 10^22 sun-like stars, in his proposed inflationary universe the numbers could possibly add up.

Of course he takes it as a given that it happened at least once (meaningless circular argument) because he doesn’t believe in God and he’s breathing, and had a birthday, so it must have happened.

His purpose is to rationalize the actual odds against an abiogenesis event in the actual visible universe of 10^22 sun-like stars. Why is it so unlikely? He spells that out in the first sentence of the abstract.

Again: “Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life.”

Ordered information always comes from a mind. That’s the argument he is seeking to defeat. So he postulates an inflationary universe 78 orders of magnitude larger than the actual universe so that his flawed numbers will seem to work, in spite of several other insurmountable realities.

This shtick that both of you employ (eg “you’re just ignorant”, “you need to catch up”, “you don’t understand”, “you seem to have missed it”, etc.) backfires famously when it becomes obvious that you don’t understand the words, the concepts, or the intent of the paper. A risky move for you that’s failing miserably. Why not be a little respectful and change your assumptions?

Anyway, I dont like this semi-hijacking of the thread. I can start a new one and invite everyone to participate.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  Pater.

[Fred]

Pater: “The purpose of the paper is to make the case that at least one abiogenesis event is statistically expected in a hypothetical inflationary universe of at least 10^100 sun-like stars.”

That’s only approximately true. Actually, he’s showing that it’s statistically feasible for an RNA polymer of sufficient length to be self-replicating (which could then provide the commencement of natural selection) to be created through purely random reactions. They note that this is the “most conservative polymerization process”, so it’s something of a worst case. They also note: “that the case of a high abiogenesis rate (N_life ≳ 1 for N_* = 1)
cannot be excluded by this work, because we assumed that abiotic RNA
polymerization occurs only by the random Poisson process of adding
monomers.”

Pater: “So, even if the likelihood is statistically negligible in the actual universe of 10^22 sun-like stars, in his proposed inflationary universe the numbers could possibly add up.”

“Possibly” add up? Unless you can identify a math error, it seems that they DO add up, and this supports the thesis of the paper. Of course, he doesn’t show that it’s LIKELY within the volume of the visible universe (that’s the 10^22 stars), but it becomes increasingly likely as we consider increasingly larger volumes. The fact that the universe is considerably larger than the visible universe is not controversial.

Pater: “Of course he takes it as a given that it happened at least once”

The author isn’t debating whether or not God is responsible. He’s simply showing showing that even the conservative assumption of random polymerization can produce an RNA chain that is long enough to self-replicate. The relevance: it defeats an argument based on the premise that a self-replicating molecule occurring by chance is impossible.

Pater: What in the heck? I’m speechless. I mean seriously, this is laughable.

If you’re still laughing, please explain why – in light of the intent of the paper, and what I’ve explained it shows.

[Pater]

@ the OP

James said: “But this is all that an apologetic response (any apologetic response) can do so embracing any apologetic response necessarily comes with a heavy epistemic price tag; that being, if you have made a mistake when embracing it, you have no way of finding this out because there’s no obvious and reliable way of testing it and because the claim is unfalsifiable, you can no longer claim that others have a burden of proof against it.”

The intelligent information in the genetic code is prima facie evidence of an intelligent source. If others deny that, they have a burden of proof to support their denial.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by  Pater.

[James]

That was the point of the question in the OP really. If our “agency detection” faculties are misfiring in relation to genetic code etc, how do we find that out? Folk obviously do take time to provide analysis to point out why our agency detection should not be treated as reliable in such situations so that was a given. When this happens, I see those people being accused of “trying to deny God” etc, but not much else. That’s obviously a question begging type of response.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

There are a couple of consequences to the view considered in the OP.

Either 1) God has a rival he cannot defeat, or 2) God is complicit in the evil his accomplice committed.

Neither of these demonstrates that the view is false, but they do make either omnipotence or omnibenevolence incoherent, if not both.

Others may have already mentioned this; apologies for any repetition.

seán s.