God, Suffering, Evil and Disease Revisited

[DrDeath]

the reason why the church denounce this kind of progress is because it all stems back to the belief that god created us in his own image. obviously if god is all knowing like we are lead to believe then when he created us he would have known about our flaws and still created us with them, hence we are meant to be this way, so by trying to alter this, we are attempting to improve on gods work by assuming we know better then him. to the church this is blasphemous and therefore wrong. the church has always had a problem with science because it attempts to not only understand gods work, but also attempts to improve upon it...

hence the reason why I'm a non-believer cos the church doesn't like progress, and can't prove that god exists.

evil does not exist. we simply say something is evil if it doesn't conform to the socially accepted morals of the time and society that the actions are being considered in respect to. morals change over time and across different societies therefore the definition of evil changes as well its just a matter of personnal judgement.

 

[Royce]

THE CHURCH still is against birth control. What do you expect, rationality?
Wait a few thousand years for them to catch up after all they just now got around to apologizing to Galileo.

 

[Paul Martin]

I can only point out that the evil that has been done in the name of religion, any and all religions, is done by man that justify their evil doings by using religion and saying that God or Buddha or Allah is on our side.

I agree. But I would go further and say that all evil is done by man. I would rule out natural disasters, no matter how much pain and harm they cause as being "evil". I think natural disasters are indifferent and indiscriminating - neither good nor evil. I would go further yet and say that all good that is done is also done by man. Even though much in nature is "good", it too is indifferent.

Every evil done in the name of religion is against and contrary to the very teachings of the religion cited.

I agree with this, too. It substantiates my point that the good intentions of religious founders typically go horribly wrong.

Which brings us right back to the original topic of this thread. It is Man's fault that evil and suffering exist, except for natural disasters, It is Man that do, tolerate and perpetuate evil, not God or religion.

I agree. And, as I said, I think man should get all the blame for all the evil, but man should also get all the credit for all the good.

I say it is the evil that Man does with his knowledge, not knowledge itself, whatever its source may be, that is evil.

I agree completely with this.

Which is more evil Religion or Science or is it neither.

You are right: it is neither. Inasmuch as either Religion or Science are simply providers of information, they are as indifferent as nature. It is what humans do with that information that results in good or evil.

For every evil that man has done in the name of religion, we can show an evil that mankind has done using Science and Technology. At least religion causes local evil but, has not threatened us with total extinction.
Genocide yes but not all life on earth.

You are correct to point out that my previous list of the evils done in the name of religions was lopsided. In order to do a fair comparison, we would have to list and quantify four different categories:

1) The evil acts committed using information provided by Religion (the soul).
2) The evil acts committed using information provided by Science (the senses and mind).
3) The good acts using information provided by Religion (the soul).
4) The good acts using information provided by Science (the senses and mind).

In my previous note, I outlined a few evil acts in category 1), which might amount to the killing and torturing of several millions people.

In your note, you outlined a few evil acts in category 2), which amount to several tens of millions of people, and you mentioned the potential for many more.

But, when it comes to good acts, I think Science tips the balance completely over the other way. To quantify category 4), think of the improvement in human life since the time of Roger Bacon (or pick any other time when you would agree that Science began contributing useful information to us) that have resulted from Scientifec knowledge. There have been huge gains affecting billions of people. Take food: we now use a scientifically developed method of producing nitrogen fertilizer from the air which daily produces enough extra food to feed 1 billion people beyond what the natural Earth could do. Take clothing: Much of our clothing is made synthetically and whether the fibers are natural or not, they are spun, woven, sewn, distributed, and cleaned using Science based technology. Take transportation: billions of people every day utilize mechanical transportation which almost all of them would prefer to horses and donkeys. Take medicine: Many millions (maybe even billions) of people (including me) would not be alive today except for the products and techniques of scientific medicine. etc. etc. etc.

In category 3), we have Jesus feeding 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 (or 3, I can't remember) fishes. But the knowledge of how to do that stayed with him and couldn't be transferred to anyone else. We have faith healing, which no matter how effective, can't compare to modern medicine. But there is no serious or significant contribution to solving the human problems of food, shelter, clothing, transportation, communication, etc. etc.

It seems to me that the conclusion all this leads to is that humans are solely responsible for all the good and evil done in the world, so we should look for ways to prevent evil-doing, and we should look to Science for the most useful information in how to provide tools for doing good.

As far as preventing evil-doing, it would seem to be a good start to reduce the influence religious organizations have on young minds.

Good talking with you, Royce.

Paul

 

[Intuitive]

THE CHURCH still is against birth control. What do you expect, rationality?
Wait a few thousand years for them to catch up after all they just now got around to apologizing to Galileo.

The Church doesn't pay attention to what will make the Human race become extinct.

Birth control keeps this world from becoming Raped of all its resources due to over population to fast and seeks an equalibrium of population to resource ratios.

If population is not controlled then poverty will increase due to a lack of resources and space and disease will become more prominate, This has been seen in Wildlife conservation time and time again and doesn't get ruled out because we are Humans.

Humans must follow the same conservation as Animals to prevent population issues.

Birth control is not the only thing the church doesn't know anything about
and jumps to personal opinions about what GOD wants without study of all the good or bad that will come out of it.

Do you think GOD would not like a perfect Human Race, I think not, Having a perfect genetic race will lead to a higher quality of life for at least a 120 year life span without chronic illness with the addition of conservation of the Human race and all species.

The Church made the biggest bumbler of all time when Stem Cell research was affected by Fanatics.

This is what a http://images.google.com/imgres?img...=/images?q=stem+cell&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=G" looks like.

A Stem Cell is a Cell, not an Embryo, Also, Embryo's are thrown into the trash and discarded on a daily basis by all Hospitals, They are rarely given any burial like a new born baby that dies prematurely.

Trash vs. Research, Which is more Moral?
one gives us nothing and the other gives us details and hope.

Any Physicist knows this and the Church has blinded themselves with self opinion of what GOD wants.

The Church has been making mistakes using a lack of research and will continue to do so until the Church starts looking at what good things will bring.

I judge a High Quality of Life to be right over living with a chronic illness because the church's opinion with a lack of knowledge deems it immoral without conducting any reasearch.

Guide lines will always be ineffect and science today isn't as immoral as it used to be, like destroying animals for research, this is dissappearing and eventually it will be non-existant.

 

[Royce]

This thread is not intended to be a place where we can dump on the church. We all do it occasionally; but, please try to stay somewhere near the topic.

Humans must follow the same conservation as Animals to prevent population issues.

What eat, their young, mass suicide by jumping off cliffs like lemmings, I know of no animal including Man that voluntarily control their population with the possible exception of wolves and eagles. Please explain your reason for saying this.

 

[Dichter]

Religion and theology were not born out of a need to explain evil and suffering. As everyone pointed out in this thread, it is not too difficult to understand why those things exist without resorting to theological arguments. For instance, you know your need the feeling of pain to protect your body; you can't easily conceive of a world where cutting someone's leg wouldn't cause them to feel enormous discomfort.

The problem lies on the other side, and I have not seen anyone touch the issue on this thread (my apologies if I missed a post; I tried to read everything)

Essentially, religion is needed to explain not suffering but joy, not evil but goodness. In a world of brutality and meaninglessness we should not expect to find reasons to live apart from reproducing ourselves (which is all that nature prescribes anyway). Instead of that, though, we find that life is filled with things whose existence cannot be related to our need to survive and reproduce. Things like beauty and laughter and song and romantic love.

Even sex, that most basic thing nature expects from us, has its mysteries. Why should it be pleasurable? Breathing is not particularly pleasurable yet we do it all the time. There are many ways in which nature could have "programmed" us to seek sex; there is no particular reason why it should give us immense pleasure.

So the basic question is, why is the world so filled with good things? And here, it is my perception, only religion provides an answer. It may not be a good answer, it may even be a false answer, but as things stand it is the only answer available.

Another important question is the question of morality. It's true that much of our moral behavior is geared toward survival, but not all of it. For instance, it would be beneficial to our species if the strong killed the weak and took all of their possessions. It would make sense to annihilate inferior races to promote the growth of superior ones. It would make enormous sense to purify our species by getting rid of people with physical or mental defficiencies. Yet none of those things can be done.

To put in very plain terms, on what basis, other than purely moral, can you refute things like nazism or communism? And if something must be refuted out of a purely moral basis, doesn't that mean morality is absolute, in the sense that it exists apart from individual judgements? If morality is absolute, we have the problem of explaining where it comes from.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Essentially, religion is needed to explain not suffering but joy, not evil but goodness. In a world of brutality and meaninglessness we should not expect to find reasons to live apart from reproducing ourselves (which is all that nature prescribes anyway). Instead of that, though, we find that life is filled with things whose existence cannot be related to our need to survive and reproduce. Things like beauty and laughter and song and romantic love.

I like your view here, except that I'd say we imagine a beneficient creator to explain goodness rather than religion. But you are correct to say there is no reason for goodness or love or laughter in the survival-of-the-fittest theme.

In physicalist philosophy, which is the most intelligent and prevalent alternative to a spiritual explanation, we could just as well be zombies and survive. Bacteria have out-survived everything, so why should life have moved past that consciousness-wise? Why aren't we mechanical, emotionless biological robots with computing skills and effective survival programming evolved into us?

 

[Rade]

In physicalist philosophy, which is the most intelligent and prevalent alternative to a spiritual explanation, we could just as well be zombies and survive.

In physicalist philosophy, humans, unlike bacteria, cannot do just as well in a zombie state and survive and reproduce. Humans are the "rational" animal, not the "zombie" animal. Please provide one example of a pure zombie human society that survives and reproduces within itself. Yet another example of your continued unjustified attack of "physicalist philosophy". Sorry, but this is just how it comes across.

Bacteria have out-survived everything, so why should life have moved past that consciousness-wise?

Indeed, a great logical argument as to why "consciousness" was not present on the Earth at the time when there were only bacteria as the most evolved forms of life. The next step of the evolutionary process was based on non-random reproduction of genotypes in response to changing environment, consciousness had nothing to do with it--otherwise we must all agree with your philosophy--which of course we all do not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In physicalist philosophy, humans, unlike bacteria, cannot do just as well in a zombie state and survive and reproduce. Humans are the "rational" animal, not the "zombie" animal. Please provide one example of a pure zombie human society that survives and reproduces within itself.

There are no zombie human societies, I didn’t say there was or could be. What I said was that according to physicalist theory of how consciousness came about, what need is there for certain of our conscious qualities?

If survival of the fittest is what has driven evolution, then how does appreciation, for example, benefit that? I can eat food without appreciating it, all I need is the programming of my genes to make me want to eat, or to have hunger make me eat. But why appreciation? It has nothing to do with survival. Similarly, why love? We don’t need love to reproduce, or even to provide for children. It is to our species advantage to have offspring, so why not just have sex, raise children, train them to survive and leave love out of it.

As far as being rational, a computer can do that, so why do we feel and desire to be good and want to help others and appreciate music and . . . ? The computer can’t do it, but still manages to compute just fine.

A zombie is, in philosophy, someone who can do everything a human being can do by just going through the motions. It can laugh, it can perform a beneficial act for others, it can think . . . but it isn’t aware of itself doing so and doesn’t care for real, it just is behaviors.

If you are interested in what I am suggesting, it’s that the way we are self-aware is that we “feel” ourselves, and that qualities like love and appreciation are advanced forms of that self-aware sensitivity. Now, why is that a poor fit with physicalist philosophy? The qualities of consciousness are not consistent with qualities of the physical realm. More below.

Yet another example of your continued unjustified attack of "physicalist philosophy". Sorry, but this is just how it comes across.

I don’t know if it is an “attack,” but I certainly am skeptical of physicalist belief. You might say my skepticism is unjustified, but here’s why I doubt. To accept physical principles and processes as the sole creator of life and consciousness, I need to see physical principles and processes behave in a way that indicates they can lead to life and consciousness.

Analogously, let’s say there is a wet spot on the ceiling above a bathtub full of water. You assert that wet spot got there from water running up the wall to that spot. I doubt standing water can flow uphill (without an external force acting on it) and so want you to demonstrate water can do that. You can’t but you believe it happened anyway.

Life is based on the finest quality of organization seen anywhere in the universe. For life to have developed in Earth’s chemistry being guided by physical principles and processes alone, it means those principles and processes must possesses the ability to organize with the quality we find in life. Okay, demonstrate it.

You can’t do it, no one can. As of now, it is physicalist myth no different that the Adam and Eve myth, accepted as “truth” by believers because they need it to justify their pet philosophy. But it is myth, pure and simple. So I say either show it is possible or admit your “belief” is unjustified.

But you see, if it was just that the self-organizing basis needed for abiogenesis is deficient I wouldn’t be such a relentless critic. The problem is, physicalist believers, lacking the self-organizing basis for a purely physical development of life, have nonetheless leapt from that nonexistent foundation to claim all life forms evolved through the same means! And, still foundationless, they go on to claim consciousness came about that way too.

Both abiogenesis and evolution are supported by utterly inappropriate logical extrapolations. Abiogenesis main support is the limited degree of ordering that occurs when you combine certain chemical under certain conditions. Yes things organize a bit, but then it stops. Because chemistry is the basis of every facet of life, and because all the relationships involved in chemistry are physical, believers fallaciously conclude physicalness must be what created all the amazing biomachines (it is called the fallacy of composition in logic). They have conveniently ignored the fact that there is no explanation for how all those chemical/physical relationships got organized like that.

About now you might say, yes there is, it’s mutation and natural selection. Overlooking the fatal fact that you haven’t shown chemistry can get itself to create an intact cell with genes that can mutate in the first place, you still have a problem. That problem is the quality of mutation seen today. We cannot observe organs being created, all we can observe is “adjustments” to bird beaks and moth colors etc. We can see solid evidence of common descent, so we know genes were manipulated to create the different life forms, but we don’t know the forces that manipulated those genes.

What reason is there for physicalist believers to attribute genetic variation to random chance? Chance doesn’t normally result in beneficial change to a system, and that is even the case with most mutation observed today. The amount variation within a species also isn’t enough to produce the kind of changes that lead to new organs. A bigger or smaller bird beak is hardly sufficient variation to create a liver or eye. Theorists may suggest that when organs were forming maybe there were circumstances which created a much larger range of genetic variations, but that still doesn’t explain why so much of it would just happen to be exactly, precisely what was need to create a pancreas or brain (ultra-high functioning systems).

Yet all the physicalist world has pinned their faith on such happy accidents, judiciously selected, as the creator of the magnificently effective organs found in organisms when there are no examples anywhere of happy accidents creating anything more than bigger bird beaks. Yes, something has guided the genetic changes that created all of life, yes something guided chemistry to form the first cell . . . but what?

Physicalists say physical principles and processes can do that. Okay, I repeat, show they can or admit there just might be an unrecognized “something” that is responsible for the organizational quality found in life.

Indeed, a great logical argument as to why "consciousness" was not present on the Earth at the time when there were only bacteria as the most evolved forms of life. The next step of the evolutionary process was based on non-random reproduction of genotypes in response to changing environment, consciousness had nothing to do with it--otherwise we must all agree with your philosophy--which of course we all do not.

See, you are doing what all “believers” do. You speak evolution theory as though it is a fact. You don’t know what caused evolution, and you certainly don’t know if consciousness had anything to do with it. You say it was physical conditions alone, I say physical conditions do not indicate they can “evolve” anything by themselves and I ask you to prove they can. You can’t do it, yet you have no hesitation in speaking physicalist beliefs like they are the truth. C’mon, show us all the great self-organizing things physicalness can do not guided by consciousness (and you can’t cite living systems since they are already created, and what created them is what’s in dispute).

 

[selfAdjoint]

If survival of the fittest is what has driven evolution, then how does appreciation, for example, benefit that?

Perhaps because appreciation makes hominids more fit? Even chimps socialize (grooming) and have social mores. Some evolutionists think that mathematical intelligence evolved originally to enable us to decode cultural cues - a survival trait in a cultural animal. Perhaps music appreciation evolved for some similar purpose.

 

[heartless]

Now I am going to throw away all of the assumptions of the original thread and make one other.

Let's assume that the physicalists are right. There is no God or Creator.
All that is is the natural result of the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and evolution.

Who or what now do we blame for all the evil, suffering, starvation, disease and killing in the world?

It's stupid, because in whichever way you go you'll come to the point when you actually have to accept the existence of God. I think we should blame ourselves for all these, and evolution Evil is caused by human desires, not thinking, being greedy, desire of revenge and more. Suffering is the same, evil causes suffering. Besides this, people who starve suffer also, so whether you lack something in life you suffer (often)

Starvation is because people don't possesses money for food and everyone around is so damn selfish that can't get them some, or at least encourage them to work if they can, if not drive them for the government help. In other parts of the world, Africa, India, and more, people starve because there is no food. Even if they have money, they don't have anything to spend it on. They of course can move, but I think government keeps them there and the world, as no body let's them immigrate to better parts of the world.

Disease was the part of evolutionary process. <-- one of many things that evolution has gotten wrong

Killing in the world, is caused by not thinking about humans morality. It's often driven by revenge and desire. They think this is enough to pay for something although it is not.

So concluding, we should blame us and evolution for all of these, but since evolution isn't a thinking process, same as we can't blame Earth for bad weather, we all should blame ourselves for this. Bible says that God gave us a perfect world, even if he didn't isn't this life enough for you? Here comes also the concept of prayers. People don't realize that God already gave them a lot. They want more and more from him like he'is a Santa Clause. The rest is your job. You have a free will, then use it up, whether for helping others and finding the way of living, wealth, knowledge, whatever. You have millions of ways you can use up your free will.

I just remainded myself of Adolf Hitler. People don't realize that rise of Hitler was their fault. They had 7 years to stop the WWII and they DID NOT! All they did was watching like Hitler raised the reich against jews.
And now all the books write, Hitler this, Hitler that so why the f*** didn't you stop him, but watch his evil, like a good thriller movie? Same with George Bush.

Blame also yourself for these, maybe if enough people start realizing their part in evil world, thanks to them world will start fixing itself? Maybe.

THanks,

 

[Royce]

Thanks for the response heartless. My point was whether we assume a god or not the evil and suffering in the world is our fault not God's so this argument is not a valid argument against the existence of God the creator and master of the universe.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Thanks for the response heartless. My point was whether we assume a god or not the evil and suffering in the world is our fault not God's so this argument is not a valid argument against the existence of God the creator and master of the universe.

What? It's OUR fault that we're intelligent metazoan animals, doomed to die and to know it?

 

[Rade]

... I say physical conditions do not indicate they can “evolve” anything by themselves and I ask you to prove they can. You can’t do it...

Thank you for your detailed response above--let me start with this statement above, since it seems to be at the heart of your mystical philosophy. The cosmology of physics clearly "indicates" (your term) that the universe "evolved" (which after all only means changed over time) from very simple forms of matter to create more complex (e.g., first was quarks, then free nucleons, then simple clusters of nucleons [helium], then more complex clusters, etc.). Thus your statement above is just plain false. The known physical conditions of the early universe do indicate they have evolved by themselves, and physicists have done a very nice job putting together the mechanism of the evolution process. Second, you repeat the classic error of the non-scientist--asking a scientist to "prove" something. Of course the process of "science" does not prove logical arguments. Science (e.g., the physicalist philosophy you attack) is "knowledge with uncertainty". Your philosophic bent is "belief (or faith) with uncertainty".

... It is to our species advantage to have offspring, so why not just have sex, raise children, train them to survive and leave love out of it.

Yes, of course, love of one person for another has nothing to do with "raising children". Many folks love others but do not have offspring. Many folks have sex without love. Many have love of others without sex. Why did love evolve ? You are correct, it had nothing to do with sex. To say that you love, is to say that you place value. Love is linked to rationality, and since the human animal is the only "rational animal", it is the only animal to place value on (1) self and (2) that outside self, and thus the only animal capable of love. Of course love comes in many forms, as expected, since the process of reason places value on many different things in many different ways. Thus the mechanism of love (e.g., placing value) is clearly supported by a physicalist philosophy, derived over time (e.g., evolved) as individual primitive humans used reason to place value on objects experienced.

...The qualities of consciousness are not consistent with qualities of the physical realm

Say what ? Consciousness is not consistent with neuron processes (e.g., what you call the physical realm)--is this not on the face of it a nonsense statement ?

...As far as being rational, a computer can do that...

False--no computer is rational. To be rational means to act "by choice". A computer does not chose to act or not to act. True, a computer uses logic, which is a quality of being rational, but use of logic alone is not sufficient to the rational entity. The rationality of the computer is the rationality of the zombie not the human being--e.g., the computer like the zombie does not know the purpose or motives of its actions.

...Life is based on the finest quality of organization seen anywhere in the universe. For life to have developed in Earth’s chemistry being guided by physical principles and processes alone, it means those principles and processes must possesses the ability to organize with the quality we find in life. Okay, demonstrate it.

It is clear from this statement that you have not studied the science of cybernetics. It is well documented how physical systems have the ability to organize matter and information, exactly as found in living systems.

...We cannot observe organs being created, all we can observe is “adjustments” to bird beaks and moth colors etc.

All known "organs" as systems found in all mammals were well established 100s millions years ago in very primitive forms of life--good gravy, of course no human has "observed" the sudden appearance of new organ systems. What humans can observe is the "gradual" evolution of organ systems from simple forms of life to more complex.

... What reason is there for physicalist believers to attribute genetic variation to random chance?

You have to be kidding, right ? You have never heard of genetic "recombination" during meiosis in gametes? You do not understand this most basic biological process--yet you find it OK to rant and rave about "fallacy of logic" of science.

 

[Rade]

... Bible says that God gave us a perfect world...,

No, bible says God gave us good world--not perfect. A perfect world would not allow evil to exist, yet clearly God created evil as God (also called the Lord) informs: The Lord said "I form light, and create darkness." "I make peace and create evil, I do all this" (Isa. 45:7).

 

[heartless]

What? It's OUR fault that we're intelligent metazoan animals, doomed to die and to know it?

Yeah, of course. What's wrong with it? Whether you look from the point of religion or evolution, suffering is our fault.

Bible says that man brought death into the world by a sin. It also says that God gave a perfect world, and men destroyed it. According to Bible, you die but then you receive a gift of eternal life, probably in heaven. I don't know what this life looks like, and I can't tell you anything about it. These are just the words of the Bible. Look, people suffer, because it's the part of salvation. God of the Bible wants to test you whether you qualify for endless and amazing life or not. It's the same as doing tests in this life. Why do you take tests when applaing to jobs, schools? That's correct, they want to see whether you qualify or not. (These aren't actually my personal thoughts but what the Bible says.)

Now look at evolution. Evolution evolutionized humans with free will, and desireful thoughts which lead to suffering. It was fault of evolution that you die, not anybody's else. From the beginning of evolution living things "fought" with each other. Blame evolution for this. It's not actually a humans' fault that you die. But it's humans' fault that we suffer. Yes, it definitely is. We all have free will and power. We all can think intelligently (most of us) so why don't we just say someday, stop to suffering? You know why? Because most of the people don't care about suffering, that's why. There is only a little handful of people who asked this question, "why people suffer?" The rest doesn't care and doesn't think about it. And in addition, this little handful of humans, is unable to change the rest. Mainly because people tend to be steady with their will.

Good night you intelligent metazoan animal

 

[heartless]

No, bible says God gave us good world--not perfect. A perfect world would not allow evil to exist, yet clearly God created evil as God (also called the Lord) informs: The Lord said "I form light, and create darkness." "I make peace and create evil, I do all this" (Isa. 45:7).

No. God created a perfect world
Bible says that Everything that God does is perfect.

He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.

Deuteronomy 32:4

As for God, His way is perfect;
The word of the LORD is proven;
He is a shield to all who trust in Him

Samuel 22:31

For truly my words are not false;
One who is perfect in knowledge is with you.

Job 36:4 (This one actually doesn't say that what God does is perfect but that God's knowledge is perfect. It's still similar.)

Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out:
he is excellent in power, and in judgment,
and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict.

Job 37:23

The verse and translation given by you doesn't quite make sense.

I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

There are two explanations, I'm rather with the first one.
God first talks about the light and darkness - word by word
and then says that he also makes peace and suffering. Why would God wanted to explain what God said? God doesn't do that anywhere else in the Bible. God doesn't explain words said by God. Some Examples - The Book of Job. Gospels.

Second explanation.
God talks about light and darkness - meaning peace and suffering
and then explains. - an irrational example, probably the only one.

Anyway, I was wrong. Actually there is a contradiction in the Bible. Look at the above examples, that God work is perfect. But, the Genesis doesn't actually say that the world was perfect but very good.

"Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Genesis 1:31

Thanks,

 

[Rader]

We all have free will and power. We all can think intelligently (most of us) so why don't we just say someday, stop to suffering?

That’s an excellent thought. You have my support.

You know why? Because most of the people don't care about suffering, that's why. There is only a little handful of people who asked this question, "why people suffer?" The rest doesn't care and doesn't think about it. And in addition, this little handful of humans is unable to change the rest.

If you truly believe what you wrote, your thought is already dead. Positive changes in this natural world that bring about a natural perfection come to be by thought. Although thoughts are not mine. They are attributed to
many Thomas Jefferson Abraham Lincoln Susan B. Anthony Martin Luther King ect. to infinity and back. Yet why should any of there thoughts and ideas have ever come to be reality, if not collectively many minds would not have thought of and accepted simultaneously these convictions. It seems to me that we all do care, it’s just that we do not have a computer large enough to calculate the entanglement of all thoughts to understand why change occurs when it does. If we did maybe we could think correctly.

Positive changes are what appeared to be bad, to change into what appears to be good which equals existence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Thank you for your detailed response above--let me start with this statement above, since it seems to be at the heart of your mystical philosophy.

An inner experience is the heart of my mystical philosophy. My self-organization argument is the heart of my criticism of physicalism.

The cosmology of physics clearly "indicates" (your term) that the universe "evolved" (which after all only means changed over time) from very simple forms of matter to create more complex (e.g., first was quarks, then free nucleons, then simple clusters of nucleons [helium], then more complex clusters, etc.). Thus your statement above is just plain false.

I don’t have a problem with allowing that some mechanical transformation, sans conscious guidance, results in organization. We observe new galaxies forming as well as stars, and stars are quite the neat little system. However, you are not addressing the kind of self-organization I’m talking about (even though we don’t know whether consciousness had anything to do with setting up the Big Bang and post-Big Bang conditions that can spontaneously form galaxies/stars); what you are pointing to is child’s play compared to the level of self-organization required to explain the origin and development of life.

The known physical conditions of the early universe do indicate they have evolved by themselves, and physicists have done a very nice job putting together the mechanism of the evolution process

Just because you “explain” something doesn’t make it true. But let’s assume the origin of the universe is well accounted for by conditions described in the standard model. Do you think the likeliness of Earth developing spontaneously out of the same conditions is explained? If so check out this link:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

True, it’s prepared by someone who favors ID (a curse word around here), but nearly every one of his points are backed by a science article he references. I don’t support religious ID, but that doesn’t mean proponents don’t occasionally make good points, points with which even some scientists agree (have you read the book “Rare Earth”?). Make sure to scroll down and take note of his probability figures which don’t have to be nearly that low to cause one to question the accidental formation of Earth.

Second, you repeat the classic error of the non-scientist--asking a scientist to "prove" something. Of course the process of "science" does not prove logical arguments. Science (e.g., the physicalist philosophy you attack) is "knowledge with uncertainty". Your philosophic bent is "belief (or faith) with uncertainty".

I am not the one claiming matter can self-organize into life, I am not the one claiming purely mechanical and accidental mutation will consistently produce genetic changes that result in high-functioning organs, and I am not the one who is going to the Supreme court demanding we teach our children this as “most likely” way things have occurred. If you make a claim, and you want to publish it in every textbook in the country as “most likely,” then others have a right, scientist or not, to demand claims be substantiated. Besides, this is a logic issue, not a scientific one.

Right now scientists are missing the two huge pieces I’ve mentioned: self-organization and genetic variation of the quality that can produce organs. These are not small matters, these are the very foundations upon which physicalist abiogenesis and evolution theory rests. How is it okay to fail to prove foundational factors and then leap to conclusions all based on those factors? Just because you and other “believers” want physicalness to be the creator doesn’t mean you have a right to ignore the rules of proof and logic so you can preach your gospel to the world.

Say what ? Consciousness is not consistent with neuron processes (e.g., what you call the physical realm)--is this not on the face of it a nonsense statement ?

No, consciousness is not consistent with neural processes. Neurons are merely pathways and storage areas. If I speak into a microphone and you hear my voice over a loudspeaker, are you going to attribute speaking to the microphone, wiring and loudspeaker? All neuronal process do right now is show pathways and how we use our brains, it doesn’t explain the self-aware being that is functioning through that system.

It is clear from this statement that you have not studied the science of cybernetics. It is well documented how physical systems have the ability to organize matter and information, exactly as found in living systems.

Please, spare me the condescending baloney. What documentation shows matter (without conscious intervention) self-organizing for more than a few steps? There is no non-living system occurring in nature that humans haven’t set up (which would be conscious intervention) that first evolved itself and then evolves new systems which create an overall system (i.e., organism). Either demonstrate perpetual self-organization of the quality that builds systems which themselves can keep evolving (since that’s what happened with life), or admit you don’t have clue how matter self-organized into a cell.

This is just the sort of inadequate representation being made by physicalists who act like a few amino acids forming in a Bell jar, the repetitive patterns of PCR or crystals, etc. is proof enough that matter can self-organize into a cell.

All known "organs" as systems found in all mammals were well established 100s millions years ago in very primitive forms of life--good gravy, of course no human has "observed" the sudden appearance of new organ systems. What humans can observe is the "gradual" evolution of organ systems from simple forms of life to more complex. You have to be kidding, right ? You have never heard of genetic "recombination" during meiosis in gametes? You do not understand this most basic biological process--yet you find it OK to rant and rave about "fallacy of logic" of science.

My science education is fine, I am familiar with and understand the theory (I was once a biology major and wholeheartedly accepted Darwinistic evolution). Please excuse me if I get a tired of the old condescension tactic of attacking my education when you can’t defend your theory.

It’s not my problem you can’t prove your theory! You state it as true, now prove it. Until you do, stop telling the world (if you are representing your opinion as an “objective” scientific one) that the evidence supports your theory. The evidence does not support organ development by means of the sort of genetic variation we observe today. Something had to have affected genetic variation in particular to have it produce so many consistently propitious changes to evolve new high-functioning systems.

Why don’t we see that quality of genetic variation today? If such a mechanism exists to produce such positive genetic variation (especially at the rate it appears to have occurred during the Cambrian explosion), surely we should find critters everywhere evolving some new cool thing. It isn’t enough to say “well, way back before we could observe it was when those groovy genetic variations happened, but now it’s stopped.” How convenient!

The truth is, physicalists just plain don’t have the answer yet, and they may never have it because they require physicalness to do things it can’t be shown to do. If that is so, then what is wrong with proposing a yet undiscovered (by science) organizing principle that contributes what physicalness is lacking?

 

[Rade]

.. then what is wrong with proposing a yet undiscovered (by science) organizing principle that contributes what physicalness is lacking?

Well, nothing is "wrong" with proposing alternative hypotheses--that is the way of science. Problem is Les, as you well know, there is no alternative scientific hypothesis to neo-Darwinian theory of natural selection that explains the knowledge you seek, e.g., self-organization leading to gradual formation of organ systems via tissues via cells. Yes, there are ID type (religious) arguments, your inner experience (mystical) argument, arguments from philosophy (logic), perhaps others. So, put yourself in shoes of high school biology teacher. When topic of "origin of life on earth" is next to teach--what would you teach ? From above, you seem to suggest that evolution should not be taught at all--since it is so clearly false--so many unknowns--so many questions. You would teach that the great and all powerful universal and mystical consciousness magically commanded the base pairs of DNA and RNA to self-organize, correct ?

 

[heartless]

So, put yourself in shoes of high school biology teacher. When topic of "origin of life on earth" is next to teach--what would you teach ? From above, you seem to suggest that evolution should not be taught at all--since it is so clearly false--so many unknowns--so many questions. You would teach that the great and all powerful universal and mystical consciousness magically commanded the base pairs of DNA and RNA to self-organize, correct ?

I also agree with Les, I guess you don't realize how amazing human body is. It couldn't possibly made from 'probability' because as everyone know, according to the big bang and later to evolution, our "coming" here was just a matter of probability, such probability, of Earth's position, moon and so on is not very likely or not likely at all to happen. I agree that there could be an evolution of species, but it was under the watch of a genius based upon its calculations, power or whatever. And I think nobody has seen a fish evolving into a lion. It could be a slow process, but I think it would be very likely that we see such 'evolutions' nowadays in some kind of living things. Excluding the viruses, and bacterias because these are actually the only things that we see evolving or mutating. I also think that why don't we just keep focusing on 'science' and stop fighting whether God created it or Big Bang, it's not necessary in science. People who accept the God's creation and people who think that nothing exploded, shouldn't fight with each other. These both are beliefs, one tends to be scientific another not, but does it make a difference? We're not going to be ever able to get to know the exact way as we weren't there so why just stop losing your time on something that won't have an influence on anything?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I guess you don't realize how amazing human body is

Isn't it funny how the more somebody, such as a molecular biologist, knows about how the human body works, the more she is likely to be a devoted evolutionist?

And it was ever thus; in the long ago, it was the doctors, with their long experiece, if no theory, of the human body who were most likely to be atheists with mechanist, or "physicalist" attitudes toward its working..

It is the folks whose ignorance of the factual human body is pasted over with sentimental mythological haze who deny natural selection and "soulless" functionalism.

 

[heartless]

Isn't it funny how the more somebody, such as a molecular biologist, knows about how the human body works, the more she is likely to be a devoted evolutionist?

And it was ever thus; in the long ago, it was the doctors, with their long experiece, if no theory, of the human body who were most likely to be atheists with mechanist, or "physicalist" attitudes toward its working..

It is the folks whose ignorance of the factual human body is pasted over with sentimental mythological haze who deny natural selection and "soulless" functionalism.

I wouldn't say it's funny but rather interesting. I always wanted to ask a real proffesorish evolutionist if he feels amazed by human body, but actually I've never gotten a chance. My biology school teachers don't know the answers to most of the questions, and in addition, almost everytime I would ask my current biologist, I hear "It's just the way it is, scientists don't know everything, amazing isn't it?" (amazing about human body) it makes me more think that our bodies are amazing. I have a friend, who had been teaching biology at Columbia Univ, he had to teach evolution, but when I talked to him, he said that our bodies are too amazing to be the product of evolution, there had to be a designer. He's actually close to retirement, but he keeps exploring and learning the anatomy of human body, he thinks that about 30% of our body is still undiscovered. I may as well predict that you've been somewhat close to the biology proffesor or teacher, tell me seriously, what do you think about the design of human body? Earth? Do you think it just happened without interference of something? Do you think there are living things in other parts of the universe?

 

[Dichter]

Isn't it funny how the more somebody, such as a molecular biologist, knows about how the human body works, the more she is likely to be a devoted evolutionist?

Isn't it funny how the more somebody knows about the Koran, the more the person is likely to be a devoted muslim?

Isn't it funny how the more somebody knows about Buddhism, the more he is likely to be a Buddhist?

Isn't it funny how the more somebody knows about materialism, the more he is likely to be a materialist?

What's so special about indoctrination?

(edit: there is no relationship between a person's acceptance of evolution and a belief in materialism; evolution theory is rational knowledge, materialism is doctrine)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, nothing is "wrong" with proposing alternative hypotheses--that is the way of science. Problem is Les, as you well know, there is no alternative scientific hypothesis to neo-Darwinian theory of natural selection that explains the knowledge you seek, e.g., self-organization leading to gradual formation of organ systems via tissues via cells. Yes, there are ID type (religious) arguments, your inner experience (mystical) argument, arguments from philosophy (logic), perhaps others. So, put yourself in shoes of high school biology teacher. When topic of "origin of life on earth" is next to teach--what would you teach ? From above, you seem to suggest that evolution should not be taught at all--since it is so clearly false--so many unknowns--so many questions. You would teach that the great and all powerful universal and mystical consciousness magically commanded the base pairs of DNA and RNA to self-organize, correct ?

But see, you misunderstand me. I think it is fine to teach what is actually known. We can be virtually certain of common descent, for example, because of the genetic evidence. We can be certain that life forms developed over a long time, and not in a few days as some Biblical creationists think. We can be certain that genetic variation and natural selection are at least effective "adjustment mechanisms," by which I mean they are known to adjust size, color, etc. of a species to help adapt to environmental changes.

However, we don't know how life started, we haven't a clue why genetic variation became so effective it created the potential for organs, and I would say it is also highly questionable that even when genetic variation produced potenial organ development material that natural selection would be so capable as to consistently "select" those variations which would lead to highly complex organs a few thousand steps away.

God forbid, but it just might be that Darwin jumped the gun by assuming from bird beak/color adaptations and common descent that the only factors involved in evolution are genetic variation and natural selection. They are part of the story, but so far trying to make them the only factors has failed. Yet nearly the entire scientific world grabbed onto the theory like a starving man clings to a scrap of food. Why?

I say it's because of the science-religion war, and not because the evidence needed to uphold Darwinist evolution is there. If a theory is developed with intent of eliminating anything religion might be able to use to support its claims, then that is hardly going to be objective. Not-religious isn't the same thing as scientific truth.

Further, why does science have to have an answer for everything? If something unavailable to scienctific scrutiny is part of the answer for something, science doesn't have to freak out and attempt to answer it anyway. But "scientismists" seem to think that if science can't answer it then it must be bogus or an illusion.

Back to your point about what to teach, why not teach what has been observed? And if Darwinistic evolution is taught, teach it as an unproven theory showing exactly where the evidence is missing. But what is happening now is that the "gaps" are being glossed over, or they are covered by factors which when examined carefully don't cut it as an explanation. So in the end the public is being deceived by science zealots who want to fend off those nasty ol' creationists and IDers, and who want their faith system accepted instead. If gaps can't legitimately be filled by physical factors, then that should be admitted rather than pretending "oh yes, we got it covered . . ." and then when we look we find bullsh*t intended to prevent the religious from putting something in that gap.

My own view is that science is wonderful at exposing the physical world. But if it can't reveal anything but what's physical, it is fallacious logic to conclude only physicalness exists when science can't find anything but physical factors as it looks at things. Should I conclude the world is pink when I only look at it through pink lenses? If there is a God, it is found through another means. Just because someone wholly devoted to science doesn't want to develop or rely on those consciousness skills doesn't mean God doesn't exist!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Isn't it funny how the more somebody, such as a molecular biologist, knows about how the human body works, the more she is likely to be a devoted evolutionist?

And it was ever thus; in the long ago, it was the doctors, with their long experiece, if no theory, of the human body who were most likely to be atheists with mechanist, or "physicalist" attitudes toward its working..

It is the folks whose ignorance of the factual human body is pasted over with sentimental mythological haze who deny natural selection and "soulless" functionalism.

Yes there is ignorance, and it does lead to unfounded beliefs. But there is more than one way to be ignorant. One can ignore everything, or most things, except what helps one survive or chase one's desires, for instance. Most people I meet don't know much more than what it takes to raise a family, do their job, and pursue their favorite recreations. There is a lot more to know than just that obviously.

Then there is the ignorance of someone who is really smart, but who only looks at one class of information, and then illogically concludes that everything is some form or another of what he is obsessed with. Because he "ignores" anything which isn't his chosen area, he remains ignorant of whatever is outside that. Because he is smart, his justifications for ignoring this information can be quite brilliant, but since in the end it results in ignoring things, it is nonetheless ignorance (albeit, cleverly disguised ignorance).

Also, I think you have to realize what can happen to an intelligent person who has been raised in a society where superstitious religious beliefs have been indoctrinated into its members from childhood on. If he's been convinced that creation happened in seven days and we all descended from Adam and Eve 7000 years ago, and then he starts investigating the universe and finds out what he's been taught doesn't make sense, what does he conclude?

Well, too many have concluded that the God thing is altogether false rather than conclude religion may be the problem. Because his only exposure to God has been through religion, he's assumed that God and religion are synonymous, and therefore the way it's all been represented by religion is how it must be to contemplate the possibility of some sort of universal consciousness at work in creation. So really, just how logical is he being? It reminds me of a female friend of mine who married a bully, got a divorce, and then married a wimp. The opposite of a bully isn't necessary a smart choice, and the opposite of religion is necessarily a smart philosophy.

BTW, it isn't from ignorance that I deny that natural selection et al can create and evolve life. It is due to being unable to find an adequate self-organizing mechanism present in physical potentials that can produce abiogenesis and the basis for evoultion. Show that and you'd have a real change in my willingness to contemplate physicalist philosophy.

 

[Royce]

What? It's OUR fault that we're intelligent metazoan animals, doomed to die and to know it?

If you believe that that is evil and suffering, then, yes, its our fault. I, on the other hand, think that while this is our condition on earth, it is not necessarily our ultimate fate. I think that this but our first step in our spiritual and consciousness evolution and growth. And, Yes, that is Gods fault.

While I'm not sure exactly what "metazoan" means, it is still to be determined if we are intelligent or not.

 

[Rade]

... It is due to being unable to find an adequate self-organizing mechanism present in physical potentials that can produce abiogenesis and the basis for evolution. Show that and you'd have a real change in my willingness to contemplate physicalist philosophy.

First, let me thank you for your very reasoned response to my last post. As to above, from my reading on this topic (especially in the area of cybernetics) the "mechanism" of self organization (for both non-living and living entities) derives from the concept called "emergence". Now, before you claim I somehow insult your intelligence--that is not my motive--I am trying to understand reality as you are. I offer here a possible avenue for you (and I and others) to study to get to your very important question--HOW ABIOGENESIS ? Of course we know it happened (i.e., life happened)--but HOW, that is the question. I suggest the answer may lie in concept of "emergence". Thus consider:

(1) ammonia is a gas, so is hydrogen chloride. When the two gases are mixed , the result is a solid. HOW IS THIS ? How does a solid derive via theory from two gases ?

(2) Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen are tasteless. Combine them and you get sugar with taste. HOW IS THIS ? How does taste derive from non-taste entities.

(3) There are ~ 20 amino acids in a bacteria cell. None of them have property of self-reproduction. Combine them and as a whole they self-reproduce. HOW IS THIS ? How does self-reproduction derive from entities that cannot so reproduce.

So, what is common in three examples above--only one thing--it is the concept of "emergence". Now, if we had "complete knowledge" of the entities in the three examples above, we could predict (within limits of experimental error) the "exact" mechanism that results in (1) solids from gases, (2) taste from non-taste, (3) self-reproduction from entities that cannot self-reproduce. But we do NOT have such complete knowledge, the reason being that the systems are two large--too many interations--even at level of two gases.

Thus it must be a axiomatic concept (via philosophy) that, for a complex system, there is no a priori necessity for the properties of the whole to be a simple copy of those of the parts. I suggest we will never know HOW ABIOGENESIS, no more than we will know HOW TASTE from non-taste atoms ! But, then, ALL KNOWLEDGE IS IMCOMPLETE, thus why expect complete knowledge of anything, let alone mechanism of abiogenesis.

Again, all this above comes from science of "cybernetics"--I suggest the books by W. Ross Ashby, An introduction to Cybernetics", and Design for a Brain". I hold that it is within science of cybernetics that one finds "physicalist" answers to explain abiogenesis and thus the theoretical and mathematical basis for organic theory of evolution. It is OK to disagree--but better to offer an alternative hypothesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

First, let me thank you for your very reasoned response to my last post. As to above, from my reading on this topic (especially in the area of cybernetics) the "mechanism" of self organization (for both non-living and living entities) derives from the concept called "emergence". Now, before you claim I somehow insult your intelligence--that is not my motive--I am trying to understand reality as you are. I offer here a possible avenue for you (and I and others) to study to get to your very important question--HOW ABIOGENESIS ? Of course we know it happened (i.e., life happened)--but HOW, that is the question. I suggest the answer may lie in concept of "emergence". Thus consider:

(1) ammonia is a gas, so is hydrogen chloride. When the two gases are mixed , the result is a solid. HOW IS THIS ? How does a solid derive via theory from two gases ?

(2) Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen are tasteless. Combine them and you get sugar with taste. HOW IS THIS ? How does taste derive from non-taste entities.

(3) There are ~ 20 amino acids in a bacteria cell. None of them have property of self-reproduction. Combine them and as a whole they self-reproduce. HOW IS THIS ? How does self-reproduction derive from entities that cannot so reproduce.

So, what is common in three examples above--only one thing--it is the concept of "emergence". Now, if we had "complete knowledge" of the entities in the three examples above, we could predict (within limits of experimental error) the "exact" mechanism that results in (1) solids from gases, (2) taste from non-taste, (3) self-reproduction from entities that cannot self-reproduce. But we do NOT have such complete knowledge, the reason being that the systems are two large--too many interations--even at level of two gases.

Thus it must be a axiomatic concept (via philosophy) that, for a complex system, there is no a priori necessity for the properties of the whole to be a simple copy of those of the parts. I suggest we will never know HOW ABIOGENESIS, no more than we will know HOW TASTE from non-taste atoms ! But, then, ALL KNOWLEDGE IS IMCOMPLETE, thus why expect complete knowledge of anything, let alone mechanism of abiogenesis.

Again, all this above comes from science of "cybernetics"--I suggest the books by W. Ross Ashby, An introduction to Cybernetics", and Design for a Brain". I hold that it is within science of cybernetics that one finds "physicalist" answers to explain abiogenesis and thus the theoretical and mathematical basis for organic theory of evolution. It is OK to disagree--but better to offer an alternative hypothesis.

I am not unfamiliar with cybernetics; I have been a fan of Wiener since the ‘70s, as well as Fuller, Bateson and others who’ve suggested system potentials in some way. I've been fascinated with the potentials of systems, synergy and emergence most of my adult life.

Leaving your bacteria example out of it (since that is occurring within an organized system and what organized it is what’s in dispute), none of the examples you gave, or can find anywhere right now, indicate they can attain progressive organization. Remember how I defined that? It is, “when changes which take place become evermore organized toward self-sustaining systems.” If your ultimate point is that consciousness might emerge from neuronal complexity, that is another issue since we have to figure how physicalness organized itself into a brain in the first place. If your point is that some sort of synergism might explain progressive organization, okay.

But here’s the deal. If physical synergistic potentials are what create a perpetually organizing system, then you need to show that can happen. It isn’t enough to show something organizing a few steps, or synergizing some simple way, and then LEAP light years to the conclusion that you’ve now accounted for progressive organization.

Outside of life, the situation with physical processes is often more like what Paul Davies described, “. . . the probability of a random choice leading to an ordered state declines exponentially with the degree of [order] . . . the odds against randomly-generated order increase astronomically. For example, the probability of a litre of air rushing spontaneously to one end of a box is of the order 101020 to one, where the number 101020 stands for one followed by 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros!”

Remember, we are not talking about biogenesis but abiogenesis, which means physicalness (without conscious intervention) generated life, and we are talking about proving physicalness has the potential to achieve that. An explanation isn't proof that something can happen. Every theory that has and will exist usually has some sort of real circumstances from which the theory was derived. It is fine to project what that theory might explain; but then, if it is to be made an empirical proposition, the next phase is to set up a situation where what has been projected can be observed.

If it's science, it is wholly unsatisfactory for proponents of a theory to say they can't demonstrate the veracity of their claims but insist they are nonetheless correct. We know of many examples of synergy, for instance, but it it can’t be shown that self-directed synergy created life. There are many examples of self-organization that produce results not predicted by the components. However, the examples of known emergence, similar to the known examples of order from chaos, show us a few steps and then . . . poof (e.g., the Miller-Urey experiment).

Now, if we add one ingredient to the mix we can get a far more complex system going that communicates, metabolizes and reproduces in a fashion, and even thinks (and this is primarily what cybernetics has helped with). What’s the ingredient? Human consciousness. Consciousness takes things with organizing/synergestic/emergent potentials and lifts them to the next level of perpetual organization (perpetual as long as consciousness stays involved). But remove consciousness from the situation and the perpetual part of the organizing soon stops. As far as what we have actually observed, consciousness is the only thing in this universe that can progressively organize.

So right now emergence doesn’t explain perpetual organization toward systems. If you are going to insist that physicalness is the basis of all, and that emergence is the basis of abiogenesis, you have demonstrate it has the potential for attaining progressive organization. As I have said several times in past debates, I’d be happy just to see that matter can kick itself into self-organizing gear and keep going and going and going and . . . (i.e., and not necessarily create something living). At least we’d know that physicalness has a perpetual self-organizing ability. Can you (or anyone) demonstrate at least that? Nope.

 

[Rade]

... As I have said several times in past debates, I’d be happy just to see that matter can kick itself into self-organizing gear and keep going and going and going and . . . (i.e., and not necessarily create something living). At least we’d know that physicalness has a perpetual self-organizing ability. Can you (or anyone) demonstrate at least that? Nope.

Yep. It was demonstrated long ago in a series of experiments. Manfred Eigen (Scientific American, 1981) put matter into a test tube and large RNA molecule "emerged", and the exact same molecule re-emerged over and over again in independent experiments. And Leslie Orgel (Proc. Royal Society London, 1979, see also 1973 book on origins of life) has demonstrated that such RNA molecules, once emerged, with no enzymes provided, can self replicate themselves spontaneously in presence of zinc, and the process can keep going and going and going as long as raw materials are present. So, your well reasoned hypothesis has been falsified--physical matter can "progressively" self-organize, since it is but a simple step for RNA to form progressively more complex DNA, for both to progressively become encased within a protective membrane (think the simple virus for RNA, the more complex bacteria for DNA) for such single cell structures to progressively evolve to multiple cell systems, to form tissues, organs, organ systems, etc. etc. etc. (over 100's millions years, with ever changing environment, mutation and natural selection as important cast members in the play)--all without any necessity of a "consciousness" directing the process. So, indeed, be happy -- good for health.

ps/ See this also if interested in details of Eigen experiments:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercycle

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yep. It was demonstrated long ago in a series of experiments. Manfred Eigen (Scientific American, 1981) put matter into a test tube and large RNA molecule "emerged", and the exact same molecule re-emerged over and over again in independent experiments. And Leslie Orgel (Proc. Royal Society London, 1979, see also 1973 book on origins of life) has demonstrated that such RNA molecules, once emerged, with no enzymes provided, can self replicate themselves spontaneously in presence of zinc, and the process can keep going and going and going as long as raw materials are present.

Hmmmmmm, are you ever going to grasp the concept of progressive organization? Replication is not progressive, it is repetitive.

So, your well reasoned hypothesis has been falsified--physical matter can "progressively" self-organize, since it is but a simple step for RNA to form progressively more complex DNA, for both to progressively become encased within a protective membrane (think the simple virus for RNA, the more complex bacteria for DNA) for such single cell structures to progressively evolve to multiple cell systems, to form tissues, organs, organ systems, etc. etc. etc. (over 100's millions years, with ever changing environment, mutation and natural selection as important cast members in the play)--all without any necessity of a "consciousness" directing the process. So, indeed, be happy -- good for health.

And here we have once again a "believer" stating theoretical possibilities as though they are facts. Hey, demonstrate RNA without your help spontaneously progressing as you speculate it can all by itself. Can you do it?

 

[Fliption]

Isn't it funny how the more somebody, such as a molecular biologist, knows about how the human body works, the more she is likely to be a devoted evolutionist?

Well dichter stole my point on this comment. The reason you observe this is because part of becoming a molecular biologists involves the acceptances of foundational theories. I believe Dichter called it "Indoctrination ".

 

[Eric England]

Good is inherant in all things. Evil desires good, but only for itself alone.

The most evil acts are not done for the suffering of others, but for the sole enjoyment of the doer. That's the problem with evil. It doesn't think of the other, even in the other's suffering. It only thinks of itself.