Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
What's more probable: Abiogenesis or God?
-
What's more probable: Abiogenesis or God?
I came across this discussion among creationists that starts with the viewpoint
“If you don’t believe in God, you’ve gotta come up with a natural explanation for why you are sitting here now…
In order to be an atheist and claim that you are a rational thinker, in other words, you think there is no god or you don’t believe there is a god, in order to rationally believe that, you need to find a totally natural way to get from non-life to life, you have to explain that leap somehow. Otherwise you believe in something that no one can accept, that’s not rational.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lf5r5P-7JI&t=114s
Why is it that theists think atheists should be able to explain exactly how abiogenesis happened, while they themselves don’t have to explain how God is possible and can simply say that “I believe God exists and that he has supernatural powers”?
I, as a self-taught sceptic with limited cognitive power, have to rationally assign probabilities to those two competing possibilities: An as yet unknown sequence of carbon chemistry events producing life, or an intelligent being with supernatural powers. I can’t help wondering how many times God, as a minimum, had to intervene in history in order for life to eventually, after 9 billion years, begin to evolve. And, if you don’t believe in evolution, the narrative is even more bafflingly improbable.
Scientists believe the Earth is as it is because it accidentally collided in its youth with a Mars-sized planet (and some remains of this event became our Moon). I don’t think a hypothetical creator of the Universe could have made it just so that it happened. It’s called computational irreducibility and it’s a logical problem for the proponents of the KCA.
-
This discussion was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
Poul. Reason: Link added
-
This discussion was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
-
28 Replies
-
Why is it that theists think atheists should be able to explain exactly
how abiogenesis happened, while they themselves don’t have to explain
how God is possible and can simply say that “I believe God exists and
that he has supernatural powers”?You don’t believe God is possible? Why?
Everyone has to explain origins, including atheists. If you want to debate the possibility of God, I will accept. But atheists are not exempt from explaining where matter came from. Otherwise they have to argue in a circle.
One person on ICR on one of the podcasts said the she encountered an atheists who argued this way (if I remember correctly):
ICR person: How do we know the age of the fossils?
Atheist: Because of the layers they’re in.
ICR person: How do we know the age of the layers?
Atheist: Because of the fossils that are in them.
No, Atheists are not exempt. Otherwise they have to argue in a circle.
-
“You don’t believe God is possible?”
I noticed that you didn’t answer my question. But, to answer yours: You are correct, I don’t.
“Why?”
It’s like if I said I don’t believe pigs can fly and you asked “Why?”. The evidence, my friend. We all notice that consciousness and agency don’t exist in a vacuum. And pigs don’t have wings.
“Everyone has to explain origins, including atheists.”
Actually, no we don’t. Just as it is perfectly OK for scientists to say “I don’t know”. And the desire to know is what drives science. But science is not like religion. Even cosmologists are perfectly happy to say “I don’t know what caused the big bang”. Heck, a hundred years after Einstein, the theoretical physicists still don’t know how general relativity fits with quantum physics.
“If you want to debate the possibility of God, I will accept.”
OK, please begin.
“But atheists are not exempt from explaining where matter came from.”
Matter is just a form of energy (E=mc²). Energy is that which we measure in joules. But don’t ask me where it came from. It’s just a number.
“Otherwise they have to argue in a circle.”
Not really. As I said, “I don’t know” is a perfectly good answer. It’s called intellectual humility. A virtue severely lacking in theists.
-
” “You don’t believe God is possible?”
I noticed that you didn’t answer my question. But, to answer yours: You are correct, I don’t.”
Oh really? Not even the slightest bit possible? Why do you think that?
” “Why?”
It’s like if I said I don’t believe pigs can fly and you asked “Why?”. The evidence, my friend. We all notice that consciousness and agency don’t exist in a vacuum. And pigs don’t have wings.”
Why is that a good analogy for God?
” “Everyone has to explain origins, including atheists.”
Actually, no we don’t. Just as it is perfectly OK for scientists to say “I don’t know”. And the desire to know is what drives science. But science is not like religion. Even cosmologists are perfectly happy to say “I don’t know what caused the big bang”. Heck, a hundred years after Einstein, the theoretical physicists still don’t know how general relativity fits with quantum physics.”
If Atheists don’t have to explain origins, then I guess they don’t. Anyway, why is science not like religion? It has metaphysical premises, because science can’t prove science.
” “If you want to debate the possibility of God, I will accept.”
OK, please begin.”
There are three tests: Possibility, plausibility, and probability. You think God is not a possible explanation. Is that a conclusion from logic or science?
” “But atheists are not exempt from explaining where matter came from.”
Matter is just a form of energy (E=mc²). Energy is that which we measure in joules. But don’t ask me where it came from. It’s just a number.”
“Heat energy can never be created nor destroyed”. Where did energy come from, then? From a creator who put energy there in the first place, as I look at it. How do you explain the first law of thermodynamics?
-
I notice that you just repeat the same question and don’t bother to respond to my argument: “The evidence, my friend. We all notice that consciousness and agency don’t exist in a vacuum.”
The analogy I suggested was based on the probabilities being, as I see it, about the same: Zero.
Science is not like religion, because:
A) Scientist are not afraid to say “I don’t know”.
B) Science actually makes progress. We learn that there are such phenomena as plate tectonics, DNA and antimatter. Neither of which were discovered by reading the bible. They were discovered by considering the physical evidence.
You don’t seem to offer any argument for why you think God is possible.
There is no need to explain the first law of thermodynamics. It’s just an observation.
You think the energy was put here by a creator, but if that’s true, and the first law of thermodynamics is also true, the question remains: Where did He get the energy from, that he put here?
We’ll never know why the Universe exists, but if you ask me, I’d just say that it exists because, obviously, it can exist.
-
” I notice that you just repeat the same question and don’t bother to respond to my argument: “The evidence, my friend. We all notice that consciousness and agency don’t exist in a vacuum.” “
Oh, sorry. God exists in a vacuum? Where did you get that from? And why would you believe that?
“Science is not like religion, because:
A) Scientist are not afraid to say “I don’t know”.
B) Science actually makes progress. We learn that there are such phenomena as plate tectonics, DNA and antimatter. Neither of which were discovered by reading the bible. They were discovered by considering the physical evidence.”
It has philosophical premises. Here is what one article says:
“Science operates on the assumptions that natural causes explain natural phenomena, that evidence from the natural world can inform us about those causes, and that these causes are consistent.”
That isn’t proven by science. It is assumptions. Just like religion, right?
“There is no need to explain the first law of thermodynamics. It’s just an observation.”
Why?
<div>You don’t seem to give a reason why God couldn’t exist. Even Dawkins said once that he is not 100% sure of his beliefs, but 99.4% sure or something. Are you sure God is impossible? Or is he just improbable?
</div>-
“God exists in a vacuum? Where did you get that from? And why would you believe that?”
I don’t believe that because I don’t believe God exists. Vacuum is the word I chose to represent the situation before “God” supposedly created the Universe (I know, WLC says there wasn’t even a time before that event, but that only gets him in trouble with the very idea of causation). There doesn’t seem to be a better word.
This is not a debate on the philosophy of science. Sure, science works on the assumption that supernatural causes can be disregarded. If they existed, they wouldn’t be supernatural in my lingo. Unpredictable, yes, but so is radioactive decay.
We have never made any progress on why nature is as it is, including the 1st law of thermodynamics.
“You don’t seem to give a reason why God couldn’t exist.”
I already gave it. It’s time for you to argue the opposite. I know it’s hard, but that’s what you need to do, or else you have lost the debate.
-
” “God exists in a vacuum? Where did you get that from? And why would you believe that?”
I don’t believe that because I don’t believe God exists.”
Then do you expect me to say something? We both don’t believe it, so why discuss it?
“Sure, science works on the assumption that supernatural causes can be disregarded. If they existed, they wouldn’t be supernatural in my lingo.”
Can you explain? What you mean by “science”? The theory of Evolution? Science, as I know it, had its origins in people who believed in God.
” “You don’t seem to give a reason why God couldn’t exist.”
I already gave it. It’s time for you to argue the opposite. I know it’s hard, but that’s what you need to do, or else you have lost the debate.”
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, (2) the universe began to exist, (3) Therefore the universe has a cause. (1) If something has the impression of design, it is probable that there is a designer, (2) The universe has the impression of design, (3) Therefore, it is probable that there is a designer.
-
“We both don’t believe [God exists in a vacuum], so why discuss it?”
OK, so you don’t believe the Kalam narrative?
“Can you explain? What you mean by “science” The theory of Evolution? Science, as I know it, had its origins in people who believed in God?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Scientists identify as atheists much more often than the average (non-scientist) american does.
“(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, (2) the universe began to exist, (3) Therefore the universe has a cause.”
So, now you do believe the Kalam narrative. You just said the opposite (i.e. not believing God existing i a vacuum). Make up your mind. My original argument was that consciousness does not transcend the Universe; it’s just a shared experience of humans (and many other animals, I suppose). I don’t believe in the supernatural (consciousness or whatever) because (briefly put) it only tends to exist in human imagination.
“(1) If something has the impression of design, it is probable that there is a designer, (2) The universe has the impression of design, (3) Therefore, it is probable that there is a designer.”
If applied to life on Earth, read Richard Dawkins’s response (The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion). If applied to the Universe (as a whole), I can’t imagine anything that looks so utterly like the product of a single equation (the EFE): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
Plus the nuclear fusion in the stars, of course.
Why are the laws of nature as they are? We don’t know. It’s awesome. But not designed.
-
“Scientists identify as atheists much more often than the average (non-scientist) American does.”
Sorry, but most Christian scientists are kicked out and not regarded as scientists. Most scientists are atheists because that’s the requirement for being a scientist!
“So, now you do believe the Kalam narrative. You just said the opposite (i.e. not believing God existing i a vacuum). Make up your mind. My original argument was that consciousness does not transcend the Universe; it’s just a shared experience of humans (and many other animals, I suppose). I don’t believe in the supernatural (consciousness or whatever) because (briefly put) it only tends to exist in human imagination.”
Why does the Kalam need God to exist in a vacuum? Oh, right, that’s all you believe can exist outside of the universe. How do you know that? If God exists in a vacuum, I guess so. Why is that a problem?
” “(1) If something has the impression of design, it is probable that there is a designer, (2) The universe has the impression of design, (3) Therefore, it is probable that there is a designer.”
If applied to life on Earth, read Richard Dawkins’s response (The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion). If applied to the Universe (as a whole), I can’t imagine anything that looks so utterly like the product of a single equation (the EFE): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations “
I’ve heard of Dawkins’s responses. Anyway, do you disagree with premise one? It is not probable if it has the impression of design? The mac I’m typing on now has to made by random processes even though it has the impression of design?
“Why are the laws of nature as they are? We don’t know. It’s awesome. But not designed.”
I’m glad you enjoy God’s universe. Why do you think he made it (if he did)?
-
“Sorry, but most Christian scientists are kicked out and not regarded as scientists. “ – only if they appeal to supernatural causation in their scientific reasoning, I imagine. But please share some testimony that supports your statement.
“Most scientists are atheists because that’s the requirement for being a scientist!”
Again, please share some testimony.
“If God exists in a vacuum, I guess so. Why is that a problem?”
It isn’t. Except that you stated that “We both don’t believe it, so why discuss it?”.
“..do you disagree with premise one?” Absolutely. The “impression of design” is just a statement of ignorance.
“I’ve heard of Dawkins’s responses. It is not probable if it has the impression of design? The mac I’m typing on now has to made by random processes even though it has the impression of design?”
Yet you keep repeating the watchmaker fallacy. Do you not understand why it’s a fallacy? Search “watchmaker fallacy” on youtube if in doubt.
-
” ‘Sorry, but most Christian scientists are kicked out and not regarded as scientists.’ “ – only if they appeal to supernatural causation in their scientific reasoning, I imagine. But please share some testimony that supports your statement.”
Tim Clarey, Ph.D said he was considered a good student and scientist and he has a better GPA then most of his peers at all the levels. He topped most students from premier institutions across the nation (The U.S.) in a field course at Indiana University. But as soon as they knew he was a creationist, he was off the scientist list.
This is just one of many examples. If you want, you can watch a movie of it called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein.
” ‘If God exists in a vacuum, I guess so. Why is that a problem?’
“It isn’t. Except that you stated that “We both don’t believe it, so why discuss it?’.”
Alright, then. I guess he does.
” ‘..do you disagree with premise one?’ Absolutely. The “impression of design” is just a statement of ignorance.”
Well, then. Check out what the evolutionary biologists (not Dawkins) have to say about it.
“Yet you keep repeating the watchmaker fallacy. Do you not understand why it’s a fallacy? Search “watchmaker fallacy” on youtube if in doubt.”
Is it a fallacy if I only say “probable’?
-
If you believe the silliness that Tim Clarey and the Young Earth Creationists of icr.org tell you, I can’t help you.
“Is it a fallacy if I only say “probable’?”
It is a fallacy to think that if something is complex, it must be designed. If you say “It looks designed, so it’s probably designed”, you just skip past the (probable) reason why you think it looks designed: It shares the attribute of complexity with things that you know are designed. That’s a false analogy, because complexity does not imply design.
If you proceed to conclude that there must be a designer, you are stuck with the problem of explaining the complexity of the designer. Another designer?
-
“If you believe the silliness that Tim Clarey and the Young Earth Creationists of icr.org tell you, I can’t help you.”
Oh, okay. icr.org has got a lot of science for you to check out, though. If you want, we can discuss it.
“Is it a fallacy if I only say “probable’?”
“It is a fallacy to think that if something is complex, it must be designed. If you say ‘It looks designed, so it’s probably designed’, you just skip past the (probable) reason why you think it looks designed: It shares the attribute of complexity with things that you know are designed. That’s a false analogy, because complexity does not imply design.”
You must lack common sense, I’m afraid. If you showed a citizen on the street a computer and asked him if it came about from random processes, what answer do you get?
“If you proceed to conclude that there must be a designer, you are stuck with the problem of explaining the complexity of the designer. Another designer?”
WLC has a lot to say about this. The mind is less complex than material. If you want to explain everything, you destroy science, because there will never be a source of where everything came from.
-
“icr.org has got a lot of science for you to check out, though. If you want, we can discuss it.“
OK, maybe I can help you in the right direction if you want science education: The purpose of icr.org is not to do science, but rather to preach the belief that Genesis should be understood literally. If you want to learn science, look for resources that don’t offer an answer to the existence of God.
“You must lack common sense, I’m afraid. If you showed a citizen on the street a computer and asked him if it came about from random processes, what answer do you get?”
Sometimes common sense can be deceiving. Not on the history of computers, but on the applicability of analogy. You think (by analogy) complexity must be the product of design. But you are wrong. The complexity observed in nature is not a product of design. The structure of DNA is rather simple, yet strung together, it can hold sufficient information to (re)produce all forms of life. We know how DNA is replicated and the frequency of “errors” in this replication, which is a core component in the logical process called evolution.
“WLC has a lot to say about this. The mind is less complex than material. If you want to explain everything, you destroy science, because there will never be a source of where everything came from.”
I’m not going to plough through all that WLC has said or written, so please quote what you find relevant.
The mind is less complex than material? I suppose that’s like saying computer software is less complex than hardware. Which is false: Hardware can be validated to do what it is designed to do, while software can not (trust me). And likewise, a surgeon will happily remove your appendix, but not your false beliefs.
Science will never explain everything (if that’s what you are trying to say), but the desire to explain what we observe is the very goal of science.
But don’t worry: Explaining God is never going to be an ambition of science, as God cannot be observed. It always strikes me how much sophisticated theists seem to think they know about God. Still, they never even come close to explaining how God works in any kind of detail. For that is taboo: God works in mysterious ways.
-
“OK, maybe I can help you in the right direction if you want science education: The purpose of icr.org is not to do science, but rather to preach the belief that Genesis should be understood literally. If you want to learn science, look for resources that don’t offer an answer to the existence of God.”
Sorry, Poul…you’re absolutely wrong. ICR performs research within the lenses of YEC. Don’t believe me? Go check them out.
“You must lack common sense, I’m afraid. If you showed a citizen on the street a computer and asked him if it came about from random processes, what answer do you get?”
Sometimes common sense can be deceiving. Not on the history of computers, but on the applicability of analogy. You think (by analogy) complexity must be the product of design. But you are wrong. The complexity observed in nature is not a product of design. The structure of DNA is rather simple, yet strung together, it can hold sufficient information to (re)produce all forms of life. We know how DNA is replicated and the frequency of “errors” in this replication, which is a core component in the logical process called evolution.
So complexity is not evidence for design because nature is complex, and it didn’t come about by design?
“I’m not going to plough through all that WLC has said or written, so please quote what you find relevant.”
“God exists by necessity of his own nature.” Some things need a beginning; some exist by necessity.
” The mind is less complex than material? I suppose that’s like saying computer software is less complex than hardware. Which is false: Hardware can be validated to do what it is designed to do, while software can not (trust me). And likewise, a surgeon will happily remove your appendix, but not your false beliefs. “
Are you comparing material to material or non-material to material?
“Science will never explain everything (if that’s what you are trying to say), but the desire to explain what we observe is the very goal of science.”
I don’t think that is what I am trying to say. But yes, science will never explain everything.
“But don’t worry: Explaining God is never going to be an ambition of science, as God cannot be observed.”
It was in the beginning of science.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Poul: “Why is it that theists think atheists should be able to explain exactly
how abiogenesis happened, while they themselves don’t have to explain
how God is possible and can simply say that “I believe God exists and
that he has supernatural powers”?I think the first question that should be asked is: how do you account for these two uncontroversial facts:
1. Early in the life of the universe (or of earth) there was no life
2. Now there is life
There are two broad metaphysical theories that account for these 2 facts:
A. Nature did it somehow
B. God did it somehow
Some theists argue that theory B must be true unless A can be proven by explaining how life came about. That’s absurd because it ignores the fact that divine creation of life can’t be proven either. Neither metaphysical theory is provable, and neither is disprovable. So I suggest that the metaphysical question of life’s origin ought to be taken off the table in debating God’s existence/non-existence because life is consistent with both naturalism and theism.
The scientific question of life’s origin is different. If we assume naturalism, we’ll seek a naturalist answer. But suppose we don’t assume naturalism: we should seek to understand exactly where nature takes over from God: what did God directly create (Intact cells? complex organisms? breeding pairs of all species that ever existed?)
-
“There are two broad metaphysical theories that account for these 2 facts:
A. Nature did it somehow
B. God did it somehow”
We know that Nature exists because we see it. The problem with theory B is that it has to begin by arguing for God’s existence. Always prefer the ontologically simpler theory.
-
“We know that Nature exists because we see it. The problem with theory B
is that it has to begin by arguing for God’s existence. Always prefer
the ontologically simpler theory.”Agreed, but it may help to first frame it as that metaphysical question. Before we even consider which metaphysical theory is better supported, they should agree that both theories are on equal footing – both logically possible, but neither provable. After that, we argue for the ontologically simpler theory
-
-
-
Levi: “ICR performs research within the lenses of YEC. Don’t believe me? Go check them out.”
I did. In this weeks article titled “A Subsurface Ocean on Mimas?” I find the following:
Creationists think these bodies could still be cooling off, still shedding the energy God gave them at creation just 6,000 years ago.
So you are absolutely right in that they take YEC as a premise for their search of the literature for anything they can paint as support for YEC. Sorry, but I don’t call that science. Do they really imagine that God created the Universe 6000 years ago complete with a ton of evidence (like cosmological redshift) that the Universe is ancient, as in over 10 billion years. Maybe you think the cosmologists are wrong in their understanding of redshift. Are they also wrong in their understanding of stellar life cycles? How about the evidence for plate tectonics on Earth? Was that also an effort to throw off any scientists who might have the hubris of thinking they could learn anything by studying the Earth?
“So complexity is not evidence for design because nature is complex, and it didn’t come about by design?”
That’s right. But you also find lots of complexity in mathematics, that obviously wasn’t designed.
““God exists by necessity of his own nature.” Some things need a beginning; some exist by necessity.”
I imagine the logic is this: “God must have existed always because if we said that He was in turn designed by another designer, then that would be turtles all the way down”. Is that it?
“Are you comparing material to material or non-material to material?”
Last time I downloaded an update of Chrome, it was entirely non-material (unlike my computer). But I think you should explain why you think the mind is less complex than material. It certainly doesn’t begin to explain God.
“I don’t think that is what I am trying to say. But yes, science will never explain everything.”
Well then, what are you trying to say?
“It was in the beginning of science.”
I think science would have emerged much earlier if not for illusions about the supernatural.
-
“Levi: “ICR performs research within the lenses of YEC. Don’t believe me? Go check them out.”
I did. In this weeks article titled “A Subsurface Ocean on Mimas?” I find the following:
Creationists think these bodies could still be cooling off, still shedding the energy God gave them at creation just 6,000 years ago.
So you are absolutely right in that they take YEC as a premise for their search of the literature for anything they can paint as support for YEC. Sorry, but I don’t call that science.”
The quote doesn’t sound fallacious. If you don’t call that science, who cares? I don’t call Evolution science, or theistic evolution, or day-age theory, etc. By the way, what do you mean by science? Observational science (what we can observe in the present) or historical science (trying to figure out what happened in the past)?
Here what ICR stands for: “ICR equips believers with evidence of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.”
“Do they really imagine that God created the Universe 6000 years ago complete with a ton of evidence (like cosmological redshift) that the Universe is ancient, as in over 10 billion years. Maybe you think the cosmologists are wrong in their understanding of redshift.”
Maybe. Or maybe I can interpret it differently. What is redshift?
“Are they also wrong in their understanding of stellar life cycles? How about the evidence for plate tectonics on Earth? Was that also an effort to throw off any scientists who might have the hubris of thinking they could learn anything by studying the Earth?”
What do you mean?
“So complexity is not evidence for design because nature is complex, and it didn’t come about by design?”
“That’s right. But you also find lots of complexity in mathematics, that obviously wasn’t designed.”
That is circular. Because nature came about by random processes; so it could.
““God exists by necessity of his own nature.” Some things need a beginning; some exist by necessity.”
“I imagine the logic is this: “God must have existed always because if we said that He was in turn designed by another designer, then that would be turtles all the way down”. Is that it?”
Here’s the logic: If everything that needs a beginning has a cause, there needs to be an ultimate cause; and that cause needs to exist eternally.
“Are you comparing material to material or non-material to material?”
“Last time I downloaded an update of Chrome, it was entirely non-material (unlike my computer). But I think you should explain why you think the mind is less complex than material. It certainly doesn’t begin to explain God.”
Chrome on a material computer. But God (non-material) and whatever you were comparing him to (material) are two vastly different things, right?
“I don’t think that is what I am trying to say. But yes, science will never explain everything.”
Well then, what are you trying to say?”
What did I say?
“It was in the beginning of science.”
“I think science would have emerged much earlier if not for illusions about the supernatural.”
Really? Why didn’t science emerge anywhere else but in the Christian world?
-
“If you don’t call that science, who cares? I don’t call Evolution science, or theistic evolution, or day-age theory, etc. By the way, what do you mean by science? Observational science (what we can observe in the present) or historical science (trying to figure out what happened in the past)?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research
informs us that ICR’s work in the field of creation science has been rejected by the scientific community (as I’m sure you know). I think we should agree that science is what the scientific community recognises as science. If you share scientific work that passes peer review by independent scientists, it may be published in the relevant journals. That’s how the academic world maintains a modicum of consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
informs us that “In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength, and corresponding decrease in the frequency, of electromagnetic radiation (such as light)”.
Astronomers can measure the redshift of light received from distant stars and galaxies. From the redshift they can deduce how long the light has travelled to reach us. The oldest light seen so far by the James Webb Space Telescope (from JADES-GS-z13-0) has travelled 13.4 billion years, which is rather more than the 6000 years that ICR considers to be the age of the universe, so ICR clearly got that wrong. The light we see from the Andromeda Galaxy is approximately 2.5 million years old. As you see, astronomy is looking into the past.
“What do you mean?”
I’m referring to different sources of evidence for an ancient Earth. Why would God create a universe with all that evidence if it is misleading?
“That is circular. Because nature came about by random processes; so it could.”
Random mutations + natural selection = evolution. The evidence is everywhere in nature. It didn’t all happen over just 6000 years, but it’s still happening everywhere as in dogs, bacteria and Corona viruses.
“Here’s the logic: If everything that needs a beginning has a cause, there needs to be an ultimate cause; and that cause needs to exist eternally.”
Sounds like you are referring to some unknown law of nature. All we can know about the beginning of the Universe is that it could happen, because obviously it did. That’s it. Some kind of causation may or may not have played a role. We don’t know because we don’t understand the physics involved.
Supernatural origin narratives have probably been told since the dawn of man, but no record remains of the earliest. What makes you think you got the right one? Because it’s the one you were told?
“Really? Why didn’t science emerge anywhere else but in the Christian world?”
Perplexity.ai tells me that “The earliest roots of science can be traced back to the Ancient Near East, particularly Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, around 3000 to 1200 BCE. These civilizations made significant contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, which later influenced Greek natural philosophy during classical antiquity. Science in the ancient world also developed in places like Ancient Persia, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient India, Ancient China, and ancient Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, laying the foundation for various modern sciences such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, and engineering.”
en.wikipedia.org
Institute for Creation Research - Wikipedia
Institute for Creation Research - Wikipedia
-
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research”
Wikipedia is a biased evolutionary website; so I don’t trust it well in that area.
“Informs us that ICR’s work in the field of creation science has been rejected by the scientific community (as I’m sure you know). I think we should agree that science is what the scientific community recognizes as science. If you share scientific work that passes peer review by independent scientists, it may be published in the relevant journals. That’s how the academic world maintains a modicum of consensus.:
What is “science”?
“Astronomers can measure the redshift of light received from distant stars and galaxies. From the redshift they can deduce how long the light has travelled to reach us. The oldest light seen so far by the James Webb Space Telescope (from JADES-GS-z13-0) has travelled 13.4 billion years, which is rather more than the 6000 years that ICR considers to be the age of the universe, so ICR clearly got that wrong.”
But we are assuming light has been traveling at a constant rate in the past and that it has been unaffected. Why do you assume that?
“I’m referring to different sources of evidence for an ancient Earth. Why would God create a universe with all that evidence if it is misleading?”
Because he would have been misleading me in Genesis.
“Random mutations + natural selection = evolution. The evidence is everywhere in nature. It didn’t all happen over just 6000 years, but it’s still happening everywhere as in dogs, bacteria and Corona viruses.”
Then give me the evidence, please.
” “Here’s the logic: If everything that needs a beginning has a cause, there needs to be an ultimate cause; and that cause needs to exist eternally.”
“Sounds like you are referring to some unknown law of nature. All we can know about the beginning of the Universe is that it could happen, because obviously it did. That’s it. Some kind of causation may or may not have played a role. We don’t know because we don’t understand the physics involved.”
But eventually the cause (if there was) has to be eternal; do you disagree? If so, why?
“Supernatural origin narratives have probably been told since the dawn of man, but no record remains of the earliest. What makes you think you got the right one? Because it’s the one you were told?”
It’s the one that has survived to the 21st century. Why did the other ones die out?
“The earliest roots of science can be traced back to the Ancient Near East, particularly Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, around 3000 to 1200 BCE. These civilizations made significant contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, which later influenced Greek natural philosophy during classical antiquity. Science in the ancient world also developed in places like Ancient Persia, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient India, Ancient China, and ancient Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, laying the foundation for various modern sciences such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, and engineering.”
They didn’t start science; they contributed.
-
“Wikipedia is a biased evolutionary website; so I don’t trust it well in that area.
What is “science”?”
Well then, do you trust Wikipedia’s article on science?
“But we are assuming light has been traveling at a constant rate in the past and that it has been unaffected. Why do you assume that?”
Because no one has ever observed the slightest change in the speed of light in a vacuum. So it has become the default assumption, and you need to do some serious theoretical physics to cast doubt on the assumption (which no one has). Actually, the unit of length (the meter) is now defined as a specified fraction of the distance light travels in a second.
“Because he would have been misleading me in Genesis.”
A literal understanding of Genesis is indeed misleading when seen as an account of history. If that isn’t what you meant, please explain.
“Then give me the evidence, please.”
Natural selection: A mutated variant of Covid-19 called Omicron spread more easily (had higher transmissibility) and therefore became the dominant strain.
Artificial selection: Breeding of dogs has produced tremendously different races, including some that probably cannot interbreed without help.
“But eventually the cause (if there was) has to be eternal; do you disagree? If so, why?”
I disagree: An infinite regress of causes could have lead to my writing this. The birth of our universe might just be one event in an infinite regress of physical causes. Unless you can prove that there was a first cause, which you can’t. But I’m also open to the idea that our universe is itself an uncaused event in a situation where only probabilities existed (as Lawrence Krauss argues in A Universe from Nothing). There is no way of knowing.
“It’s the one that has survived to the 21st century. Why did the other ones die out?”
For the same reason yours will eventually die out, when there are no more believers who can persuade their children. After that you will see Islam and Atheism being the dominant worldviews.
“They didn’t start science; they contributed.”
The first scientists have not left records, so who can tell who they were?
-
<div>”Well then, do you trust Wikipedia’s article on science?”</div><div>
Depends what they define as science. Then it depends if they decide to attack ID as non-scientific. What definition would you give to science?
</div>
“ ‘But we are assuming light has been traveling at a constant rate in the past and that it has been unaffected. Why do you assume that?’
“Because no one has ever observed the slightest change in the speed of light in a vacuum.”
That’s good, but that is only in the present. Why do you use the present to justify the past? Are you a uniformitarian?
” ‘Because he would have been misleading me in Genesis.’
A literal understanding of Genesis is indeed misleading when seen as an account of history. If that isn’t what you meant, please explain.”
I don’t know if you said it or not. Here’s what I meant: If Genesis is not literal history, and in nowhere else does it say that it isn’t, then I was mislead by God. That can’t be true.
“Then give me the evidence, please.”
“Natural selection: A mutated variant of Covid-19 called Omicron spread more easily (had higher transmissibility) and therefore became the dominant strain.”
Explain what happened a little more please?
“Artificial selection: Breeding of dogs has produced tremendously different races, including some that probably cannot interbreed without help.”
Mutations did the trick, right?
“But eventually the cause (if there was) has to be eternal; do you disagree? If so, why?”
“I disagree: An infinite regress of causes could have lead to my writing this.”
Would you then destroy historical science? Would we never find the origin of life?
“ ‘It’s the one that has survived to the 21st century. Why did the other ones die out?’
“For the same reason yours will eventually die out, when there are no more believers who can persuade their children. After that you will see Islam and Atheism being the dominant worldviews.”
Okay, I think you’re saying Christianity will disappear soon. Because children will not be persuaded. Did you know Christianity is the biggest religion in the world?
“ ‘They didn’t start science; they contributed.’
“The first scientists have not left records, so who can tell who they were?”
So now we’re in a stalemate.
-
“What definition would you give to science?“
Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article? It doesn’t attack ID because ID is not considered science, and therefore isn’t mentioned.
“That’s good, but that is only in the present. Why do you use the present to justify the past?“
Why not? To my knowledge, no one but you has doubted that the speed of light is constant.
“Are you a uniformitarian?”
Why do you ask?
“If Genesis is not literal history, and in nowhere else does it say that it isn’t, then I was mislead by God. That can’t be true.“
Or maybe God (or whoever wrote it) figured you could understand the concept of an allegory.
“Explain what happened a little more please?“
What is it that you don’t understand? Evolution of COVID-19 by natural selection may help.
“Mutations did the trick, right?“
Mutations plus selection. Do you have a better explanation for how the large variety of dogs is achieved?
“Would you then destroy historical science? Would we never find the origin of life?“
How is that a problem for an infinite regress of causes?
“Explain what happened a little more please?”
“Did you know Christianity is the biggest religion in the world?“
Maybe so, but in Europe, it’s has been largely replaced by education.
“So now we’re in a stalemate.“
Please explain.
-
“Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article? It doesn’t attack ID because ID is not considered science, and therefore isn’t mentioned.”
Why is ID not considered science?
” ‘That’s good, but that is only in the present. Why do you use the present to justify the past?‘
Why not? To my knowledge, no one but you has doubted that the speed of light is constant.”
You use the present to justify the past, so you are a uniformitarian. You assume that the universe has been uniform throughout the past. Would this work on Mt. Saint Helens?
” ‘Are you a uniformitarian?’
Why do you ask?”
Just making sure I know what you believe.
” ‘If Genesis is not literal history, and in nowhere else does it say that it isn’t, then I was mislead by God. That can’t be true.‘
Or maybe God (or whoever wrote it) figured you could understand the concept of an allegory.”
Genesis 1 doesn’t look like a poem. There is no parallelism as found in the Hebrew. What concept of allegory are you thinking?
“Mutations plus selection. Do you have a better explanation for how the large variety of dogs is achieved?”
No.
” ‘Would you then destroy historical science? Would we never find the origin of life?‘
How is that a problem for an infinite regress of causes?”
Good question. I hope you do believe in historical science. Do you?
” ‘Did you know Christianity is the biggest religion in the world?’
Maybe so, but in Europe, it’s has been largely replaced by education.”
Europe? Why is Europe being brought up?
” ‘So now we’re in a stalemate.‘
Please explain.”
We don’t know about the first scientists, so why is any of us arguing? What point is there to it if that is true?
-
-
-
-
-
-
You don’t believe God is possible? Why?
I can begin to explain this, but it requires a thought experiment.
I’m in my lounge when suddenly, a horse appears there and for apparently no reason. I know it isn’t a failed teleport experiment (that would be well publicised due to the need for crowd funding etc and there’s just no such publicity). So what could explain this? Well either P1 of Kalam is false (a horse has just come into existence, uncaused) or God has just created the horse ex nihilo and not given me his reasons.
Because it is reasonable for everyone (theist and atheist) to rule out observations that are consistent with P1 of Kalam being demonstrated false (which ironically, is how the argument works), I must rule out any metaphysical circumstances that would allow for the above observation. The only way to do this consistently (eg, without special pleading) is to rule out the possibility that P1 of Kalam is false but then assign an invisible being that can create ex nihilo and for unknown reasons, the same probability as P1 of Kalam being false.
Everyone has to explain origins, including atheists.
On the face of it, this claim is demonstrably false. People can simply admit that they have no idea how life, or even the universe, began. Suggesting that an explanation (eg, God did it) must be considered correct absent another explanation is a textbook argument from ignorance (a fallacious form of reasoning).
Argument from Ignorance (logicallyfallacious.com)
As the above thought exercise demonstrates, there can be independent reasons for dismissing a proposed explanation that lead us straight back to having no explanation at all.
logicallyfallacious.com
The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
-
Just some observations (following comments in the other, related thread – The Information Problem for Abiogenesis – Reasonable Faith Forum – Equip (knowwhyyoubelieve.org)).
“If you don’t believe in God, you’ve gotta come up with a natural explanation for why you are sitting here now…
This is not true. A claim is not true (nor should it be considered true) just because there are no other available explanations. I’m sure you’re aware, but such reasoning is referred to as an argument from ignorance. I recently needed to take my PC to be fixed because it was not powering up (actually, it powered up for years, then stopped for a couple of days, then powered up again for a couple of weeks and then stopped again). The person who takes care of my PC reported a cable had become detached and I have no idea how this happened (the person checking built the PC, the cable clips into place and I had never needed to remove it). The PC had worked for years and hadn’t been moved! “God detached the cable and for reasons that are beyond my understanding” prima facie explains the cable becoming loose. Should I conclude that this is true and just because I have no other explanation if I reject it? Obviously not. I can simply admit that I have no idea how it became loose. Because theists making the above type of claim would also accept this type of reasoning (where the topic is not the beginnings of the universe or life), this can be noted as an instance of special pleading, too.
In order to be an atheist and claim that you are a rational thinker, in other words, you think there is no god or you don’t believe there is a god, in order to rationally believe that, you need to find a totally natural way to get from non-life to life, you have to explain that leap somehow. Otherwise you believe in something that no one can accept, that’s not rational.”
This suggests that a claim should be rejected (or considered false) just because most people don’t accept it and don’t know how it happened. This resorts to two fallacious types of thinking. One is to suggest that a claim should be rejected just because most people don’t believe it (called an appeal to popularity or argumentum ad populum). Most people rejecting a claim does not entail that it is false and many claims that we now take for granted today, were once rejected by the majority of people, especially when they were first introduced to it and it was novel. The second is an appeal to incredulity (also a fallacious type of argumentation). A claim isn’t false just because we (and even most people) find it hard to believe and / or don’t know how it could be true. Any claims addressing areas that fall outside of our everyday experience are likely to be counterintuitive and hard to believe, initially at least.
Why is it that theists think atheists should be able to explain exactly how abiogenesis happened, while they themselves don’t have to explain how God is possible and can simply say that “I believe God exists and that he has supernatural powers”?
It is special pleading. Special Pleading (logicallyfallacious.com)
These objections to atheism being fallacious do not entail the falsity of theism in any way, shape or form (that would be to commit the fallacy fallacy – Your logical fallacy is the fallacy fallacy!) but are sufficient grounds to disregard those objections until something non-fallacious is provided.
knowwhyyoubelieve.org
The Information Problem for Abiogenesis - Reasonable Faith Forum - Equip
The Information Problem for Abiogenesis - Reasonable Faith Forum - Equip
Log in to reply.