SImply this: Your assertion that because something is "improbable" rules it out.
Not my assertion. Put your mind at ease.
Well, label me confused then. I took clippings from no less than about 5 of your previous posts where you quote a probabilistic argument in order to rule out the possibility of abiogenesis <shrugs>
Not so.
The odds of the muffing being there, say, to some criminal forgetting it there last night as he robbed your house are low. You see nothing missing, no evidence of break-in. Well, you just haven't noticed; he was sneaky. Why is it still hot, then? Well, maybe it has some radioactive or chemical process going on inside, which has kept it warm for these hours. It's possible. But a whole lot less likely. Plus, let's say you live on a planet with no one else. In order for the criminal hypothesis to be true, not only a break-in but also an alien invasion must have taken place last night. And the only observable thing the alien did was to leave a muffin on your desk.
This second possibility you reject. Reject it strongly, as ludicrous. Why? Solely on the odds of it being able to happen.
Odds are definitely important to us in retroactively constructing stories about how situations or phenomenon (or anything) came to be. That's how we do it. That's how rationality works.
So wait, odds are or aren't important? I'm losing track.
In the case of the existence of life, under our current scientific understanding, it is absolutely impossible for life to exist. That's it. It just is. Impossible. It turns out, the odds are far, far beyond astronomical. You could make every single atom in the observed universe -- and the universe is a big place; you have no idea! -- make every atom into primordial soup and it still wouldn't work. Actually, fill up all the empty(ish) space, too. No big empty gaps between planets and stars and galaxies. Just a huge, huge, 10^24th mile-diameter endless, endless sea of primordial soup. Life would never arise, not in the entire lifespan of the universe. You'd have to run the universe 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000...th times before life would have a fair sporting chance of happening. And you can't do that anymore, sorry, because it turns out the universe is going to end in the Big Freeze, not the Big Crunch, and there's no real reason for the Big Bang to happen in the first place, so it can only happen once.
This is all according to our current scientific understanding, you understand. It says it can't happen. Science has, at the moment, no story for the origin of life which is even remotely plausible. That's just the situation. It could change, but that is where we find ourselves currently.
So the only thread we're left with to grab onto is the Anthropic Principle, which is highly unsatisfying to everyone, to say the least, and probably does not actually qualify as an explanation; rather, it is (by definition) the lack of an explanation. It's a white flag of surrender.
It's also not science, not empirical science, because it's not falsifiable.
In fact, none of this (theories of the origins of life) is empirical science because none of it is falsifiable! Nobody gets to claim the mighty Mantle of Science ("Bow down and believe me, for I am Science") on this one. Sorry. We're all just telling stories.
So help me understand your point above about running the universe 10^24 times in order for this to happen? You're
not using probability to rule out the big bang, our existence, abiogenesis? Hmmm, I guess my reading comprehension is suffering.
From wikipedia: "The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that
observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe
it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
The anthropic principle is a philosophical tautology - meaning it is true by definition.
I personally believe in God, because of personal revelation. I think that revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God. I think that God would want us to know He exists.
Now, He'd have to strike a balance: it would not be beneficial for us for Him to personally host His own nightly newscast. He has to leave space for doubt and questioning, otherwise there would be no space for faith. There would be a lack of real freedom, of real choice. He has to step back and give us some space, in order for this growth and personal development project we call life to be able to work as designed.
But, for those who want to know, those who seek Him.... well, He has made them certain promises. He is a rewarder of them.
Now we're getting somewhere. The religious just assume their conclusion. You posit a God exists and then define it as such. You believe in God. That's fine, no one denies (even physicists) that there are wild, currently unexplained phenomenon in our universe, and no philosopher or spiritualist (or logician) would deny the possibility of other levels of reality. Please be clear, that's not what I'm doing, and am not ruling it out. My goal here is to ensure that religious and scientific discussions proceed fairly and logically.
No Big Crunch = No infinitely yo-yo-ing Universe = Not Enough Time (not even close).
Again, more ruling out of an alternative explanation using numbers/probability/time. I'm seeing lots of assertive non-asserting going on here. LOL.
What makes it happen "more than once"? Oh: the Multiverse theory. The same magical, non-disprovable metaphysical framework that makes everything happen more than once. No profound Revelation there.
Nay, it is exactly what you were saying earlier: We are here, therefore things are going to be suited for life. The odds of all conditions being perfectly tuned and life having arisen in a Universe being observed is 100%. Because it's being observed. Or, as you pithily put it:
"Given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?"
The Anthropic Principle is a true principle. Using it as a proof for one's Creation Story -- whatever that story may be -- is also a gross misapplication of the principle, in my opinion. Used in that manner, it is basically a way of ignoring the question. It is a way of defining away impossibility by stipulation. It is a way of "refuting" glaring holes and huge problems in the story you've concocted via, well, waving your hand.
Yep, so why'd you bring it up?
Dismissively skeptical: "Your story is wildly improbable to the point of complete unbelievability! There's no way it happened that way."
In a Deep, Numinous voice: "And yet: here we are."
Profound silence for a few moments.
In awed whisper: "Whoa! Yeah -- you're right!"
Do you see the logical error they both made? OK, we're here; great. Amazing observation. The whole question in question is how that happening happened. Who Done It? Not whether it happened. "Look, the muffin's here! Therefore my story about how it got here is right. Whee!"
Ok, cool. Now we're getting to the heart of this - the "how" of it occurring; not whether or not it did occur.
So to be clear, I'm not sure where the Anthropic principle arose in the course of this discussion, but at my first reading, it seemed that you were using it to defend your position. Now, I think we both understand it on the same level - it is not revelatory for us to be "noticing" a universe that "seems" to be highly tuned to support life...though if it was really that highly tuned, wouldn't we see more of it? I digress.
The point is that it would be extremely weird if we existed in a universe that was
not tuned for life but yet
were observing it. I'm afraid to even engage in that mental gymnastics. Bottom line: the Anthropic principle doesn't give us anything and adds nothing to this conversation - I'm not sure why it's part of the discussion. Maybe someone in a previous post used it to defend a position. Or maybe it was thrown up as a straw-man.
In any case, you ask the question "how did it happen?" and then you
immediately follow it with "Who done it?"!!!
My point is this: your world-view does not admit of the possibility of a "how" without a "who" - that is ok, but it is not scientific - which is why I view your argument as insincere. The scientifically minded are simply asking the "how" question - not immediately skipping ahead to a "who" using the Anthropic principle as a stepping-stone.
Some incredibly improbable events don't take much time at all to occur. Suppose four people played ten hands of bridge in the course of an evening. The a priori probability that they would receive the very hands that they were dealt is astronomical -- something like one in 10^288. Yet the event occurred and no one claims that someone stacked the deck.
Re-read Sonny's post above - he is illustrating how fantastically improbable things happen all the time, which therefore is
not a reason to rule them out. He is not addressing me, which seems to be how you took that statement. He is saying the same thing I am.
Not really. It actually does not conform at all. For it to conform, there would have to be a major advance in our current understanding of abiogenesis. Until then, it just doesn't work. Have as many Big Bangs as you want. It just doesn't work. According to our current understanding, there may not even be any mechanism that *could* work, at all, ever, even giving infinite time to infinite primordial ooze.
Going back to Sunny Tuft's bridge game, it would be like getting a hand of 200 King Kandy cards that were alive and self-aware and talked incessantly to you.
1) You can't get a hand of 200 cards in bridge
2) There are no King Kandy cards in a bridge deck, they belong to a different game called Candy Land
3) The artificial intelligence technology that would make the cards self-aware does not exist
4) Talking incessantly is against the rules of bridge
<img jesus facepalm>
Thank goodness. Where would we be without Descartes to tell us we exist? Lost in an infinite void. Though, I think you have not kept up to date: later research showed that actually it is I
feel therefore I am. Please make a note and apply the recommended patch (Hume.dll) to your philosobrowser as soon as possible to prevent malware.
Here's the truth. Here's the actual bottom line. Can you take it? Can you handle it? No one has an advantage. No metaphysics that *I* can comprehend is going to solve the origin question. No one's making any (important) logical errors, not the religious, not the non-religious (religious refers actually to lifestyle, character, and actions, -- to the
ligaments that tie your life together -- not to belief, BTW), not even wizardwatson.
Not even the muffin, as impaired as it may be.
<img large muffin>
It is an unanswerable riddle, by nature. God does not solve it. If God created everything, even if He created it out of nothing, or emptiness or whatever (I do not believe He did), do you think He ever wonders as He sits on His throne: "Where did
I come from?" You bet He does! And what's the answer? No matter what the answer is, there's always one more "Why" to be asked. Oh, small quantum fluctuations: why are there small quantum fluctuations? Oh, the Heisenberg Principle:
why is there a Heisenberg Principle? Oh, God was created by His own God, created in turn by His own God, in an infinite regression?
Why is there an infinite regression? What started it? What started any of it? Even if you come to some kind of an answer, whatever it is you figure out that "started it," well, what created
that?
Goethe had it right, the great question of all:
Why is there something, rather than nothing?
And we will never come to a final answer, due to the unplumbable nature of the concept "Origin."
There you go, or maybe there I go. We have reached common ground. It is wondrous that we're all here - it does not, however, lead us to the conclusion that "someone must've dun it."
Here's my opinion on scientific arguments for/against God (i.e. whatever it is we're engaged in here): People like to use logic and reason (or more appropriately a simulation thereof), and an attempt at the scientific method to demonstrate (or to prove) their religious viewpoint - as you did in the preceding discussion. Let me ask this: where will your faith be if/when abiogenesis is conclusively demonstrated someday in a lab?
It surely sounded like you were arguing that based on current understanding, life is impossible based upon some kind of probability calculation. Of course, as you pointed out, "one must understand the entire situation". And that's the big problem with probabilistic arguments about the origin of life -- no one knows the entire situation. I can easily (with the help of Excel) calculate the probabilities for my bridge example because there are only a fixed number of possible outcomes for a bridge hand. But no one knows all of the possibilities for the creation of life, so it seems unconvincing to me to try to use some sort of probability calculation to demonstrate that life is "impossible".
Of course, I may have assumed you were using improbability as evidence of the existence of God. In this I may have been in error, given the last part of your post in which you said, "revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God." But there are two insurmountable problems with revelation: first, the person receiving the revelation can never be sure that the experience is a true revelation from God or merely a delusion. Of course if the revelations continue and are consistent then one could very well be convinced beyond doubt that they aren't delusions, just as we (or most of us) don't think that we're brains in vats.
Second, revelation is personal and can never constitute demonstrable evidence of the existence of God. It is unrepeatable. Accordingly, it is of little use to convince someone to seek God and obtain rewards.
See? I wasn't the only one...
Based on our current understanding, we do not know how life arose. That's all! More work on abiogenesis is needed. I actually know a fellow (member of my Church) whose focus was abiogenesis. He was working hard to solve the problem! But the problem is definitely not solved, as of now.
Indeed, I was not. What can we know, but what our senses tell us (Hume)? If God never reveals Himself in any observable way, then all discussion regarding God is outside the realm of possible rational discourse.
Want my opinion? Coming back to the question of abiogenesis being demonstrated in a lab: I don't think it would matter to you. I don't think such a demonstration would rule out any aspect of your world-view, you'd just keep marching along with whatever it is you believe (which is totally fine, really), it just makes me think your argument that uses
fantastical improbability to "prove" the existence of a blind watch-maker is insincere. It doesn't preclude you from believing what you want now, nor would it if it was actually shown.
But there are two insurmountable problems with scientific (and all) observation: first, the person receiving the observation from his senses can never be sure whether the sense perceptions are at least roughly reflecting objective reality or are merely a delusion.
Welcome to the past two hundred years of philosophical thought.
You wield Occam's Razor, but then suggest we might be in an infinitely nested "Matrix" or 50-leves deep in "Inception"? Ooookkkaaaaaay? Science and logic when it suits you - philosophy and religion otherwise. It seems like you're the one mixing science with meta-physics.
Ahh, but what if it were? That is, after all, what the Bible claims. It is what the Book of Mormon claims even more explicitly and brashly. God and the prophets have thrown down the gauntlet. The challenge is there. "I AM." "Come, and See." "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
I testify that God does live, and sincere knocks are answered.
But God will force no man to heaven. You have to knock.
And that is completely fine - trust me, I have nothing against those who choose a religious life - my issue is when they attempt to prove God, their religion, or philosophy using science - which I think I've demonstrated you were doing above - notwithstanding your one-line denial.
The current proposed models of how DNA, or more promising, RNA, forms are zillions upon zillions of orders of magnitude too improbable to happen. That's how we know the models are wrong and why abiogenesisists are working on it.
So probability has everything to do with it. It usually does.
How do you know they're regular? How do you even know there's a "we" and not just a "you?" At some point, we trust our senses. And at that point we break out of existentialist mumbo-jumbo pointlessness and realize there is an objective reality and it's the purpose of philosophy, and of life, to actually deal with it. As it is.
I was just copying your sentence form, of course. But there are a lot more than two problems with scientific observation, as there are with any avenue to truth discovery. Those problems don't make them invalid.
So at current count, I think that's about 17 times you
haven't used a probabilistic argument to defend your world-view...LOL.
Who cares? Are you caring about what the reaction of believers is? If so, get a life! Forget about that! Stand up on your own two feet. It isn't about what other people think or what they say. It never was. It's about you. It's about the truth.
In the case of the Book of Mormon, it would be to read and study the book sincerely, asking God to know whether it is true.
Who cares?!? You do! You presented mulitiple arguments over the course of the preceding pages purporting to rule out a "rationalistic" viewpoint for the induction of the universe. You used the "it's too improbable argument" I don't know how many times, and then denied it. Oh well, what the hell?
Not my assertion. Put your mind at ease.
. I think this thread may be the first time in my entire tenure I've made a clear positive statement asserting the reality of God. Well, perhaps it was time.
So put your mind at ease.
