Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the party. While I craft my answer about God, would the OP please tell us why s/he does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? This is OP's chance to explain his/herself.

.

This post makes me think of when strangers see me with my children and say, "you've got your hands full!"

I smile politely at their reflexive, unthinking stab at wit, and then I move on with my day.

Heavy-handed as I was, you still seem to have missed the point (well, OK - you avoided it). The point is that you can't reasonably request an explanation for the absence of my belief in an imperceptible, ill-defined entity unless you can explain the absence of your belief in another one.

OP here, to apologize for my response. I should not have been so dismissive.

After another long day of temporary single motherhood, sadly, my brain is not up to defining God this very moment. I can point you to my earlier posts, where I outline my thought process, and promise a definition in the near future.

Who do you think God is?

I've found as much evidence for a definition of God in your previous posts as I've found evidence of his existence in the real world. That is to say, a lot of assertion, thin on any concrete details, and ever-shifting as the noose tightens...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

I do not think you know what the term "a priori" is. "A priori" means independent of evidence.

You keep promising that you will show us new ways to know truth. Please don't make it some pitiful dummy's guide to epistemology followed by a poetic twist that somehow shoehorns faith into a redefined concept of knowledge.

Faith is not evidence. And faith is not a type of reasoning. Faith is a belief.

Goodness gracious, that is exactly what I mean.

Some atheists--not all, but some--have made a decision that God cannot exist. No amount of "evidence" of any kind would convince them otherwise.

And of course by "cannot exist", you mean "shows no sign whatsoever of existing". And by "no amount of 'evidence' of any kind" you mean "one single thin shred of evidence."

And, no, "The idea gives me the warm fuzzies" is not "evidence". Nor is "There was this rainbow one time when a nun died."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Theories of evolution technically begin after the appearance of the first living cell. However, Dawkins devoted one chapter of The Blind Watchmaker to speculation about applying evolutionary theories to the origin of life.

Of course, if Dawkins is correct there is no Designer of any kind, that would include the time before the origin of life. So scientists' inability to explain the origin of life by naturalist causes should be considered problematic. But Dawkins flatly states, "The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian worldview."

Let me stop you right there. Two things: the "God hypothesis" falls prey to the same problem. You seem to think that some rhetorical trick like "eternal is part of the essence of God, therefore he's exempt", but that's frankly horseshit. You can't get there by mere assertion. Otherwise, we'd just say that the same is true for the Universe. No god necessary. In fact, He just unnecessarily complicates things.

But what if all the evidence shows life could not arise from purely naturalistic causes? That is where we stand right now, with the complexity of the simplest single cell surpassing Darwin's imagination.

This is, as the saying goes, "not even wrong," and is an insult to your correspondents' intelligence. Are you honestly offering up the argument that, unless Darwin could describe the full phenomenon of "a cell", the field of evolutionary biology that's derived from his work is suspect? Don't answer that. Yes you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Theories of evolution technically begin after the appearance of the first living cell. However, Dawkins devoted one chapter of The Blind Watchmaker to speculation about applying evolutionary theories to the origin of life.

Of course, if Dawkins is correct there is no Designer of any kind, that would include the time before the origin of life. So scientists' inability to explain the origin of life by naturalist causes should be considered problematic. But Dawkins flatly states, "The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian worldview." But what if all the evidence shows life could not arise from purely naturalistic causes? That is where we stand right now, with the complexity of the simplest single cell surpassing Darwin's imagination. There is no application of evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of information in living things, much less the presence of all the interworking functions of a single living cell. But after several speculations, Dawkins concludes, "This chapter has had the modest aim of explaining only the kind of way in which it must have happened." (emphasis mine) In other words, he is working backwards from a necessary conclusion. And his necessary conclusion is that there is no Designer.

But let's skip past the origin of life issue, to when evolutionary theory actually can be applied. In the chapter titled "Accumulating small change," Dawkins uses his "Methinks it is like a weasel" example in an attempt to demonstrate how what should be a mathematical impossibility of progressive complexity is actually accomplished in a much smaller series of steps when some of the small changes are retained along the way. (If you don't already know this analogy, it is easily found elsewhere, so I won't detail it here.) Rather than starting over from scratch every time with the letters necessary to make this sentence, if some letters are retained each time, it would not require as many chances to accomplish.

What is the logical problem with this explanation? If you are a naturalist, there is no Designer, no direction. But if so, where would this "target sequence" be stored as a goal to achieve?

A simple way to see how this explanation is fatally flawed is to think of the target sequence as a combination lock. If you don't know the combination, getting half of the letters "right" is no improvement over having none of the letters right.

This analogy was meant to demonstrate that "variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random." Natural selection requires a function to select. There is no function in a lock combination that does not work.

Dawkins admits the program was never intended to model biological evolution accurately:

"Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success." (bold mine)

There would be no survival, much less reproductive success, from a fatal mutation, and the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations does not inspire optimism for "progress."

Darwin stated emphatically, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." But some neo-Darwinists refuse to follow the evidence if it may lead towards a Designer.

These instances of logical fallacies permeate the discussions of those who cannot consider the possibility of a Creator.

Also, too, there's nothing to this Quantum Mechanics business because Newton was wrong on several points. Sorry, PP, but this is just ignorance dressed up in a cheap tux and tap dancing around the stage. I hope you got this nonsense from a third source, and didn't waste any time going through Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker with a highlighter, looking for words like "misleading". That's just sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

OK this is absurd. Why don't you strip out your hatred of Richard Dawkins and say in your own words what you think the problem is with evolution / natural selection? This is a mess.

PP, I love Richard Dawkins like a brother. Please tell me what was "absurd," and what was a "mess," and we can talk about it.

For starters, you are criticizing the writings of Dawkins and then making general conclusions about all "naturalists". Dawkins is neither our pope nor our priest. It is crazy to hang a critique of all of naturalism on a word choice he made in a book. It would be easier if you separate the two. But even so, you are misconstruing his statement. He has written enough on the subject for you to know that.


Second, you ask the question "what if all the evidence shows life could not arise from purely naturalistic causes?" But nothing you point out actually contradicts evolutionary theory, even though that is what your above question demands for an answer. You merely point out that it does not have an answer for everything yet. And for that matter, you make categorical statements that evolutionary theory has no explanations for various unspecified functions within living cells, but in fact it has hypotheses on how many of these things occurred.

Third, you make this poetic statement about cells surpassing Darwin's imagination, as though that is proof of something. Darwin's contribution to science was not cell biology. It was evolution through natural selection. He did not need to understand the inner workings of the cell to make good observations about how organisms evolve any more than Gregor Mendel needed to understand the structure of the genome to describe how inheritance worked, or for you to understand modern physics in order to predict what will happen when you throw a ball in the air.

Fourth, regarding the weasel program. You clearly misunderstand the point about the target. In real life, the target is not a "sequence". The target is "fitness to reproduce". A bad mutation makes an organism less likely to make it to maturity, to find a mate, and to reproduce. A good mutation increases the odds. That is (drumroll please) natural selection. Nature selects the fittest examples. If this was not obvious by reading the book, it is plainly stated on the wikipedia page entitled "weasel program". Your lock analogy only describes the first part of the experiment, but not the second.

As for the statement about the program being "misleading", did you really think that a day-long desktop programming exercise about weasels with typewriters would fully capture the details of evolution? He is admitting that the goal in nature is not long term like in the weasel program, but short term. However, that does not invalidate the exercise. And surely you know that natural selection, in addition to being studied in nature, has been simulated on a computer before.

So then to conclude, you accuse someone (Dawkins? all naturalists) of permeating the discussions with logical fallacies. But really, short of that one accusation you made against Dawkins for his choice of the word "must", what logical fallacies are you talking about?

See now, if they taught evolution in the public schools, PP here could've been having a nice relaxing bubble-bath instead of pulling other-PPs head out of their ass.

Thanks, PP, for your stalwart efforts here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK this is absurd. Why don't you strip out your hatred of Richard Dawkins and say in your own words what you think the problem is with evolution / natural selection? This is a mess.

PP, I love Richard Dawkins like a brother. Please tell me what was "absurd," and what was a "mess," and we can talk about it.

For starters, you are criticizing the writings of Dawkins and then making general conclusions about all "naturalists". Dawkins is neither our pope nor our priest. It is crazy to hang a critique of all of naturalism on a word choice he made in a book. It would be easier if you separate the two. But even so, you are misconstruing his statement. He has written enough on the subject for you to know that.


Second, you ask the question "what if all the evidence shows life could not arise from purely naturalistic causes?" But nothing you point out actually contradicts evolutionary theory, even though that is what your above question demands for an answer. You merely point out that it does not have an answer for everything yet. And for that matter, you make categorical statements that evolutionary theory has no explanations for various unspecified functions within living cells, but in fact it has hypotheses on how many of these things occurred.

Third, you make this poetic statement about cells surpassing Darwin's imagination, as though that is proof of something. Darwin's contribution to science was not cell biology. It was evolution through natural selection. He did not need to understand the inner workings of the cell to make good observations about how organisms evolve any more than Gregor Mendel needed to understand the structure of the genome to describe how inheritance worked, or for you to understand modern physics in order to predict what will happen when you throw a ball in the air.

Fourth, regarding the weasel program. You clearly misunderstand the point about the target. In real life, the target is not a "sequence". The target is "fitness to reproduce". A bad mutation makes an organism less likely to make it to maturity, to find a mate, and to reproduce. A good mutation increases the odds. That is (drumroll please) natural selection. Nature selects the fittest examples. If this was not obvious by reading the book, it is plainly stated on the wikipedia page entitled "weasel program". Your lock analogy only describes the first part of the experiment, but not the second.

As for the statement about the program being "misleading", did you really think that a day-long desktop programming exercise about weasels with typewriters would fully capture the details of evolution? He is admitting that the goal in nature is not long term like in the weasel program, but short term. However, that does not invalidate the exercise. And surely you know that natural selection, in addition to being studied in nature, has been simulated on a computer before.

So then to conclude, you accuse someone (Dawkins? all naturalists) of permeating the discussions with logical fallacies. But really, short of that one accusation you made against Dawkins for his choice of the word "must", what logical fallacies are you talking about?

(And it would help if you not break the quoting structure in your replies. It messes up every downstream post, which is why I have to repost this. )

+ 1.8 * 10^83

Seriously, WTF?

[Anonymous]

Here is a study that discusses a plausible environment in which ribonucleotides, the precursors to RNA, could form under conditions found on earth. This, combined with research into how these ribonucleotides could then form into RNA has already been done and is referenced.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html

Sorry you'll need an account to read the whole study, but surely that is no problem since everybody on this thread seems so knowledgeable about cell biology.

[Anonymous]

It's a fair bet that we will not get any comments on this, or the crystal pattern paper, from the theists.

It is discomforting to think that we may actually be able to show how self-replication began. It's easier to keep quoting Dawkins because he likes to infuriate Christians in order to sell books.

On the other hand, reading papers is, well, tough.

[Anonymous]

Here's another: http://www.jbc.org/content/284/48/33206.full

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a fair bet that we will not get any comments on this, or the crystal pattern paper, from the theists.

It is discomforting to think that we may actually be able to show how self-replication began. It's easier to keep quoting Dawkins because he likes to infuriate Christians in order to sell books.

On the other hand, reading papers is, well, tough.

Sure but the problem is you can't go back beyond the moment of "creation". So God will always be there to fill that void. Of course, you've got intellectual integrity, so you're willing to say, "We don't know that yet." Or "Maybe we'll never know that."

The theists have no such integrity, so they rush in with a "Creator" whose attributes conveniently include "was uncreated".

[Anonymous]

OP here...didn't want anyone to think I wasn't still fascinated by the discussion. While I am no biologist, physicist, theologian, philosopher, or great mind, I think my promised post defining God will actually address all of the points raised by the posts today. But that will have to wait for my kids' bedtime. Until then, feel free to continue without me, and I will catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a fair bet that we will not get any comments on this, or the crystal pattern paper, from the theists.

It is discomforting to think that we may actually be able to show how self-replication began. It's easier to keep quoting Dawkins because he likes to infuriate Christians in order to sell books.

On the other hand, reading papers is, well, tough.

Sure but the problem is you can't go back beyond the moment of "creation". So God will always be there to fill that void. Of course, you've got intellectual integrity, so you're willing to say, "We don't know that yet." Or "Maybe we'll never know that."

The theists have no such integrity, so they rush in with a "Creator" whose attributes conveniently include "was uncreated".

Because it is easier to imagine a complex being than an unformed universe. Apparently a single cell is beyond the grasp of Darwin, but any passerby can understand the idea of a being that always existed in the midst of nothingness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here...didn't want anyone to think I wasn't still fascinated by the discussion. While I am no biologist, physicist, theologian, philosopher, or great mind, I think my promised post defining God will actually address all of the points raised by the posts today. But that will have to wait for my kids' bedtime. Until then, feel free to continue without me, and I will catch up.

I'm now about 99.9% sure the OP is a non-believer with way too much time on her hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a fair bet that we will not get any comments on this, or the crystal pattern paper, from the theists.

It is discomforting to think that we may actually be able to show how self-replication began. It's easier to keep quoting Dawkins because he likes to infuriate Christians in order to sell books.

On the other hand, reading papers is, well, tough.

Sure but the problem is you can't go back beyond the moment of "creation". So God will always be there to fill that void. Of course, you've got intellectual integrity, so you're willing to say, "We don't know that yet." Or "Maybe we'll never know that."

The theists have no such integrity, so they rush in with a "Creator" whose attributes conveniently include "was uncreated".

Because it is easier to imagine a complex being than an unformed universe. Apparently a single cell is beyond the grasp of Darwin, but any passerby can understand the idea of a being that always existed in the midst of nothingness.

Sure, 'cause that's what He is. Meanwhile, you science types have to come up with actual explanations for your phenomena. Nya nya nya!

[Anonymous]

I read the bible. Why won't they read research papers?