A Modest Thought Experiment...

[Ponder This]

Two further questions.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began? that, because the scientists have not explained how life began, life must have been created?



EDIT: After reading some of the comments in the thread, I have come to the conclusion that I did not make clear Ms. Second's position. I have edited the thread in an effort to clarify it.

_________________________
And now for some music...

Arguments by Analogy are very tricky like that. People are always finding ways they don't think the analogy really fits or finding other ways to interpret the analogy. I suspect you will continue to run into difficulties in your attempt here.

 

[McBell]

Er...do you know anybody who thinks that way, really?

See it all the time.
Just the other day on this very forum I was told that in order for God to not be the answer, it had to be shown another answer that would work.
This is simply not true.
GodDidIt has to stand on its own two feet.

 

[McBell]

See it all the time.
Just the other day on this very forum I was told that in order for God to not be the answer, it had to be shown another answer that would work.
This is simply not true.
GodDidIt has to stand on its own two feet.

Found it:

Well first you have to define what you mean by God. Then you must present an argument (which you can't) that can explain it better. If you invoke cosmology then you fail (because you do not understand the question).

 

[Ayjaydee]

Two further questions.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began? that, because the scientists have not explained how life began, life must have been created?



EDIT: After reading some of the comments in the thread, I have come to the conclusion that I did not make clear Ms. Second's position. I have edited the thread in an effort to clarify it.

_________________________
And now for some music...

Not the same. The robber could have been any of billions of OTHERchoices, the other scene has only one other outcome

 

[McBell]

Not the same. The robber could have been any of billions of OTHERchoices, the other scene has only one other outcome

relevance?
I ask simply because even if one does prove beyond all shadow of doubt that abiogenesis is wrong, all it means is that abiogenesis is wrong.
It in NO WAY means that GodDidIt is correct.
GodDidIt has to stand on its own two feet.

 

[Nimos]

I would much rather have you invoke your God than proffer your circular reasoning.

Not, sure why you believe that is circular reasoning.... but nevermind.

 

[Maximus]

Would you care to join me in a modest thought experiment? If so, proceed...

Let's suppose there are two people, both of whom happen to be standing outside a bank at the moment an alarm goes off quickly followed by a heavily masked individual bolting from the bank as fast as a sprinting sperm cell. The two people -- let's call them "the witnesses" -- observe the man run around the corner of the bank and disappear out of sight.

Next, a squad car of donuts-armed police officers shows up to interview the witnesses. The first witness -- we'll call him, Mr. First -- states that the identity of the robber is a mystery because he was heavily masked.

The second witness -- we'll call her Ms. Second -- states that robber was none other than "Crazy Spuds Gallagher, the infamous bank robber and connoisseur of fortified wines". Furthermore, Ms. Second immediately advances her opinion that the police officers ought to believe her because she "is the only witness to the robbery who actually knows who the robber was, given that Mr. First has already admitted he himself does not know."

Now, the officers proceed to ask Ms. Second how she managed to recognize Crazy Spuds, given he was masked. But Ms. Second only responds that she knows because Mr. First has admitted that he does not know.

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

Please ponder that question for a moment before proceeding to the second post in this thread where I shall reveal the point of this remarkably fascinating exercise...

"But Ms. Second only responds that she knows because Mr. First has admitted that he does not know."

That is incoherent and is in no way applicable any rational debate on the origin of life.

 

[dianaiad]

See it all the time.
Just the other day on this very forum I was told that in order for God to not be the answer, it had to be shown another answer that would work.
This is simply not true.
GodDidIt has to stand on its own two feet.

I musta missed that one.

In all honesty, all I have ever run into is someone claiming 'Godidit" for some reason completely unrelated to anybody else's lack of belief.

When they run into that lack of belief, the believer's response is usually some form of "see?' you can't prove me wrong, so I'm right!" (quick, name that fallacy).
But the belief in God comes first, always, whatever the basis for it might be.

I can honestly say that I've never run into anybody who had no idea how the universe came into being, and then, when told that there was no possibility that a Creator was responsible, decided that one was...BECAUSE the first claimant didn't believe in one.

That's the only point I was attempting to make here.

I'm sure not going to make any claims that lack of proof, one way or another, means proof of lack. I mean, really...I'm a theist, but trust me on this one; the fact that all atheists disagree with me on that means absolutely nothing whatsoever to my belief in a God.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Two further questions.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began? that, because the scientists have not explained how life began, life must have been created?



EDIT: After reading some of the comments in the thread, I have come to the conclusion that I did not make clear Ms. Second's position. I have edited the thread in an effort to clarify it.

_________________________
And now for some music...

Objection! Your song is not a 1980s rock song.

As for objections to your musings... it's simple.

1. If something exists, there are two explanations:
a. Either it was created.
b. Or it has always been there.
2. Scientists themselves, by backing the Big Bang theory, have proclaimed the former.
3. Scientists also reject biocentrism, because it smacks of the deifying of humans (if they were always alive, then science that is has bigger things to worry about than a simple concept of a creator).

So yeah, she's right. Unless you want the other theory on how this happened.

 

[blü 2]

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say that, because the scientists have not explained how life began, life must have been created?

Each is a non-sequitur

Case 1
P is an unidentified person.
A can't identify P.
B can't identify P.
B asserts that A's ignorance compels the conclusion P is S
.
Non sequitur

Case 2
L is an unexplained phenomenon
C favors hypothesis X. C can't explain how X works.
D favors hypothesis Y. D can't explain how Y works.
D asserts that C's ignorance compels the conclusion Y caused L.
.
Non sequitur.

However, if we add a further premise to Case 1
If A is not established then (only) B
it works.

And in Case 2
If X is not established then (only) Y
it also works.

So the question is whether those added premises are available in each case.

It doesn't matter whether X is evolution or special creation, the argument is the same.

 

[Thief]

Would you care to join me in a modest thought experiment? If so, proceed...

Let's suppose there are two people, both of whom happen to be standing outside a bank at the moment an alarm goes off quickly followed by a heavily masked individual bolting from the bank as fast as a sprinting sperm cell. The two people -- let's call them "the witnesses" -- observe the man run around the corner of the bank and disappear out of sight.

Next, a squad car of donuts-armed police officers shows up to interview the witnesses. The first witness -- we'll call him, Mr. First -- states that the identity of the robber is a mystery because he was heavily masked.

The second witness -- we'll call her Ms. Second -- states that robber was none other than "Crazy Spuds Gallagher, the infamous bank robber and connoisseur of fortified wines". Furthermore, Ms. Second immediately advances her opinion that the police officers ought to believe her because she "is the only witness to the robbery who actually knows who the robber was, given that Mr. First has already admitted he himself does not know."

Now, the officers proceed to ask Ms. Second how she managed to recognize Crazy Spuds, given he was masked. But Ms. Second only responds that she knows because Mr. First has admitted that he does not know.

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

Please ponder that question for a moment before proceeding to the second post in this thread where I shall reveal the point of this remarkably fascinating exercise...

so...if you don't know the Creator …..you can't say it was Him
stirring the muddy puddle of which life came forth

and even if two witnesses know the event happened
the Perpetrator remains elusive

looks like God got away with it

 

[Ayjaydee]

relevance?
I ask simply because even if one does prove beyond all shadow of doubt that abiogenesis is wrong, all it means is that abiogenesis is wrong.
It in NO WAY means that GodDidIt is correct.
GodDidIt has to stand on its own two feet.

I agree but your anology is wrong

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would you care to join me in a modest thought experiment? If so, proceed...

Let's suppose there are two people, both of whom happen to be standing outside a bank at the moment an alarm goes off quickly followed by a heavily masked individual bolting from the bank as fast as a sprinting sperm cell. The two people -- let's call them "the witnesses" -- observe the man run around the corner of the bank and disappear out of sight.

Next, a squad car of donuts-armed police officers shows up to interview the witnesses. The first witness -- we'll call him, Mr. First -- states that the identity of the robber is a mystery because he was heavily masked.

The second witness -- we'll call her Ms. Second -- states that robber was none other than "Crazy Spuds Gallagher, the infamous bank robber and connoisseur of fortified wines". Furthermore, Ms. Second immediately advances her opinion that the police officers ought to believe her because she "is the only witness to the robbery who actually knows who the robber was, given that Mr. First has already admitted he himself does not know."

Now, the officers proceed to ask Ms. Second how she managed to recognize Crazy Spuds, given he was masked. But Ms. Second only responds that she knows because Mr. First has admitted that he does not know.

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

Please ponder that question for a moment before proceeding to the second post in this thread where I shall reveal the point of this remarkably fascinating exercise...

So Mister First is honest and says he does not know. Ms. Second apparently believes that any explanation she provides is the default explanation, since a reasonable identification was not provided by Mr. First.

She does not know either and is merely expressing her bias.

 

[McBell]

I agree but your anology is wrong

My analogy?