Atheists: Is that your final answer?

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's agonizingly apparent to me that the use of the term "god' in the strong agnostic context is grossly misleading to most. Yet I haven't found a useful term to replace it.

I find Atran's preternatural Agency useful.

 

[Jackytar]

On what standard or evidence do you base this belief?

That life is improbable. That there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe that would indicate that life would emerge. The fact that it did emerge in the form of a horse makes it more probable that unicorns could exist as well.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

I find Atran's preternatural Agency useful.

Got something for all of the non navel-gazing philosophical types like us out there?

Jackytar

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Got something for all of the non navel-gazing philosophical types like us out there?

Sorry I wasted my time with you ...

 

[Jackytar]

Folks - I am enjoying the discussion but have a trip to prepare for. Will try to catch up on the road but I have a busy itinerary. Will catch up later in any event.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Sorry I wasted my time with you ...

You misunderstand me. I like you term at first blush but will have to consider it more carefully. The point I was trying to make is that the folks on RF are more equipped to grasp these terms. My friends and co-workers have no concept of "that god" and I struggle to convey it to them. I don't think your term will help.

Jackytar

 

[linwood]

That life is improbable. That there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe that would indicate that life would emerge. The fact that it did emerge in the form of a horse makes it more probable that unicorns could exist as well.

Improbability by no means equates to supernatural agency.

To state that there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe to indicate the possibility of life is to show your ignorance of biology.

 

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by linwood
On what standard or evidence do you base this belief?

That life is improbable...

What evidence do you have that life is improbable? How much of the universe have you explored?

...That there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe that would indicate that life would emerge. The fact that it did emerge in the form of a horse makes it more probable that unicorns could exist as well.

Nature is full of self-replicating processes, of which life is a special case. We have no evidence to license the assumption that life would not emerge quite frequently in other conceivable universes, as well as ours. Evolution is a well-understood process. That horses would emerge, given the past history of the evolution of equine species on Earth, is not such a stretch. That unicorns would, is. There are environmental factors that affect the likelihood of such a probability.

 

[Jackytar]

To state that there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe to indicate the possibility of life is to show your ignorance of biology.

We are unable to reverse engineer life, let alone anticipate its emergence. And if you're so smart why don't you go to the lab and make me a unicorn?

Jackytar

 

[linwood]

We are unable to reverse engineer life, let alone anticipate its emergence.

We are also at this time unable to physically reach the boundry of our universe yet all evidence shows their is one.

And if you're so smart why don't you go to the lab and make me a unicorn?

Now there`s a compelling argument.

 

[Jackytar]

What evidence do you have that life is improbable? How much of the universe have you explored?

I could ask you the same about unicorns.

Nature is full of self-replicating processes, of which life is a special case. We have no evidence to license the assumption that life would not emerge quite frequently in other conceivable universes, as well as ours. Evolution is a well-understood process. That horses would emerge, given the past history of the evolution of equine species on Earth, is not such a stretch. That unicorns would, is. There are environmental factors that affect the likelihood of such a probability.

The probability of getting any specific imaginary creature out of the primordial soup approaches zero to the extent that we can say it is zero. But the probability is increased, however small, if that imaginary creature is a variation of an actual creature like a horse. The probability still approaches zero, to be sure. As you say, it depends wholly on environmental conditions. But I would still say it's more likely than, say, a flying spaghetti monster.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Now there`s a compelling argument.

Maybe you would find me calling you ignorant more compelling?

Jackytar

 

[linwood]

Maybe you would find me calling you ignorant more compelling?

Jackytar

If I were ignorant of a subject I would appreciate an education and have in this forum in the past been educated.

I am ignorant of a great many things.
I don`t speak with any authority on those subjects however.

 

[Jackytar]

I am ignorant of a great many things.

I'm already aware of that. All evidence does not show the universe has a boundry.

Jackytar

 

[linwood]

I'm already aware of that. All evidence does not show the universe has a boundry.

Jackytar

There you go again.

That would depend upon your definition of "universe".

That used by most cosmologists only regards the matter expanding from our particular "Big Bang".
It doesn`t encompass all of infinite space usually.

However it would seem to me civil discourse might not be a possibility with you here as you seem just a bit to emotive.

 

[Jackytar]

That used by most cosmologists only regards the matter expanding from our particular "Big Bang".
It doesn`t encompass all of infinite space usually.

Neither do we know the boundary, or even the shape, of the big bang. Are you thinking of the observable universe?

If you think I'm ignorant about something, I would prefer if you point out my ignorance than merely declaring it. You know, just to be civil and to promote discourse and all that.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Minds clearly do exist, but experience suggests that they are not godlike things. For one thing, minds are inextricably linked to brains.

That's a head scratcher. Minds inextricably linked to brains. No getting around that. Would mean that "That god" is, well, in my brain with the rest of me. Meaning he's imaginary (?). Have to think about that on my trip.

Jackytar

 

[linwood]

If you think I'm ignorant about something, I would prefer if you point out my ignorance than merely declaring it. You know, just to be civil and to promote discourse and all that.

I did point it out.

That there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe that would indicate that life would emerge.

There are many things in our objective understanding of our universe that indicate the possibility if not probability of life emerging.

The existence of amino acids in the vacuum of space for one.

The existence of water.

The existence of at least one "habitable zone" within which life as we know it can arise.

The sheer size of our universe and variety of environments we have discovered and have yet to discover within our universe is evidence of many possibilities.

Just because the past century or so of research has not positively evidenced all the requirements for life as we know it doesn`t mean continued research won`t evidence those requirements.

All things considered we haven`t really been actively searching in a rational manner for very long.
I myself am impressed with what we have discovered in such a short time.

 

[Jackytar]

I did point it out.

I must have missed it. You like declaratives, don't you?

Just because the past century or so of research has not positively evidenced all the requirements for life as we know it doesn`t mean continued research won`t evidence those requirements.

Okay, NOW you're pointing it out.

Probability, not possibility, was the question anyway. It's obviously possible. You changed it to possibility in your initial reply to this topic. The one where you declared I was ignorant about biology. I keep having to replace the goal posts with you.

We are not close to determining the particulars of the jump from non-living to living. I've heard it said that we are further away from determining this now than thought we were fifty years ago. Besides the emerging discoveries of the exquisite complexity of life, it is now widely accepted that however it began it was in an environment so alien to ours that it in no way resembles what we have available to study. The trail of history is simply lost for all time. There are and will be theories, even plausible theories, but how are we to ever know for sure? Science does not take away mystery.

Without this knowledge, and even with it, there is no way to determine the probability of life emerging. But whatever it is, it is inherently low. A belief, if you like, not a fact. But one supported by what evidence we do have, and one shared by the folks who actually know about this stuff.

Jackytar

 

[linwood]

I must have missed it. You like declaratives, don't you?

Not particularly.

Probability, not possibility, was the question anyway. It's obviously possible. You changed it to possibility in your initial reply to this topic. The one where you declared I was ignorant about biology. I keep having to replace the goal posts with you.

I have moved no goal posts.

You like hair splitting don`t you?

We are not close to determining the particulars of the jump from non-living to living. I've heard it said that we are further away from determining this now than thought we were fifty years ago.

You`ve "heard" wrong.
Notice the date on the article linked below.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Also, to complain that

"We are not close to determining the particulars of the jump from non-living to living."

Is more than disingenuous considering we`ve only been trying to figure it out for the last 50 years or so.
Now that may seem quite some time to you but I`m willing to give the good scientists a bit more time to wrestle with the answer to the existence of life itself.
Considering they aren`t gods themselves and we do seem to be getting results as the article above shows.

Perhaps I`m too charitable, you be the judge.

It would seem you also like backtracking as we`ve gone from....

Originally Posted by Jackytar
That there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe that would indicate that life would emerge.

To...

Originally Posted by Jackytar
There are and will be theories, even plausible theories, but how are we to ever know for sure?

Emphasis mine.

Unless of course you`re misusing the word "theory" but I wouldn`t want to accuse you of ignorance.

Without this knowledge, and even with it, there is no way to determine the probability of life emerging. But whatever it is, it is inherently low. A belief, if you like, not a fact. But one supported by what evidence we do have, and one shared by the folks who actually know about this stuff.

Untrue.
We`ve already determined the probability of life emerging regardless of how improbable (or impossible if you prefer).

The probability of life emerging is 100% as we both are the evidence of that life.
Unless you believe we were wished into existence by some supernatural agency (of which there is NO evidence).

It`s interesting that one would discard the evidenced theory we do have for an unevidenced concept based upon...nothing.