Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well I suppose I could - for the sake of discussion. But here's the thing: it is not a logical deduction, it is an analogically derived best guess based on only part of the available evidence (the evidence of order and complexity in biology that gives the appearance of design and purpose). The problem is, there is also a whole stack of other evidence that suggests that this appearance is, in fact, the product of an evolutionary process guided by nothing more than the nature of the environment in which the process is taking place. Genes do randomly mutate - this is an observed fact. Biological replication is an imperfect process - this is an observed fact. Otherwise apparently unrelated biological entities share genetic traits (i.e. they are, it seems, genetically related) - this is an observed fact. The fossil record shows a general trend of increasing biological complexity among the lifeforms that are represented in it - this is an observed fact. None of this is satisfactorily explained by the idea of a purposeful and intelligent creator. So on balance, it seems to me that the notion of an intelligent creator is a reasonable explanation only if you deliberately ignore the rest of the evidence. To use your own analogy, I would say this would be the equivalent of going to Las Vegas, choosing just one casino at a particular time, walking in and observing a particular table and on seeing that one player at that table had been dealt a royal flush just at that time, that this particular royal flush in that particular player's hand was the entire reason for the existence of all the casinos in Las Vegas. It cannot be claimed as a logical basis for religious belief.
It's a prediction of general relativity, actually - but never mind. Yes, we don't know - so what?
You are the one who started on the probability of god - not me. I just applied your 'logic' to some other ideas.
Evidence in a chain flows in two directions. In biology, according to Darwin, each link in the chain is based upon the previous link, and if we imagine the flow of the chain leads to more complication or increased functionality based upon mutations in the previous link, it seems to be perfectly possible. I won't address all the flaws in macro evolution, and there are very many, for my purposes here, I will accept it as fact. Now, lets follow the chain in the other direction, to that very first organism, created by chance combinations of chemicals in an absolutely perfect environment, and look at this process. In this prebiotic soup, composed of rain runoff from rocks, chemicals from volcanic action, and the addition of lightning or other sources, living organisms allegedly formed. We won't consider the very complicated series of chance incidents from the BB to the existence of earth that created this perfect environment for life. We must assume that these chemicals, randomly, formed , complicated and precise chains of amino acids, the chains connected by specific peptides, for each of 120 different proteins required for the simplest living organism known. From these would have had to come bits of DNA, encoded with specific information ( where did that come from? ) that aligned in further complicated massive chains of information having to be in the exact right order to operate the machinery of the first cells ( at least two to reproduce), that could not exist without the information first. We won't consider how these two independently produced alike organisms found one another in the prebiotic sea ( soup) We are close to the first organisms that later would become every living thing on earth, but not there yet. DNA information is encoded in a very detailed identifiable chemical code. So, our first organisms not created yet, would have to be perfectly able to read this code, have an "operating system" that could read and run the code, to function. All of this occurred by blind chance. To be fair, some origin of life scientists propose a simpler organism that morphed into ours. Unfortunately none exists, no one knows what it was, and to function as a living organism, it would have to have had information on it's function before it existed. A stupendous set of odds, but a chance, right ? I have the chance of winning a world lottery in a thousand years that is much, much more probable than this.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. An intelligence that conceives of a universe (holds a model of it in its mind) must be at least as complicated (intricate) as the universe.
Infant baptisms might be a tiny little example. But I was thinking of the big ones, like "Believe what I tell you about God and you will go to Paradise even if your ethical standards aren't all that great".
OK - I won't address all the flaws in your comments either - just the ones where you clearly need assistance to understand a little basic chemistry and biology...
Good!
No - the process was probably not entirely random - it almost certainly emerged as a self-assembling, self-replicating chemical system (such systems have been reproduced in the laboratory at different levels of complexity for different purposes) - it is possible that the 'random' part merely produced a relatively simple self-replicating system. We have no idea how simple the simplest organism ever to exist might have been - the simplest organism known is the result of about 3.5 billion years of evolution just as we are.
No again - we don't know that the earliest forms of life were based on DNA.
Where does any information come from? Its just the aspect of physical reality that tells the bits of physical reality what to do. Where does the information about gravity come from that stops the moon from slamming into earth?
Again, we do not know that the earliest forms of life were cellular in nature.
Certainly not - sexual reproduction evolved much, much later and asexual reproduction remains a hugely important part of the biological world to this day.
Why? Why would anything need information about its function before it existed? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Re information. If a living organism exists, without the information to function, it can't function, ergo, it dies. You confuse information and physical laws/properties. There is no required information for gravity to operate, it is a property of matter responding to the laws of physics. There are no physical laws that compel chemicals to create thousands of encrypted bits of information. Tell me about these self assembling replicating chemical systems and how they work and what they do. I think you really overestimate their worth. You state that they have been reproduced in laboratories, thus they have been designed and created by intelligent design and action, please tell me where these processes are happening in nature. "We don't know that the earliest forms of life were based on DNA'' True, just all subsequent life. Whatever this first bit of life, it had to perform a variety of functions to be alive. Again the question, it had to have direct information in the form properly timed complicated instruction how to function, , did non living chemicals combine in such a way as to provide these detailed instructions ? You say they had to have, I say your assurances are good, but since it has never been observed, isn;t happening now, cannot be produced in any laboratory setting, and the bottom line is we don;t know, I have to be skeptical. Lets call your first living organism a unicorn, and my intelligent designer God. I know a whole heck of a lot more about God, than you do about your unicorn
OK - but your conclusion was that moral law should be taken as if it emanates from a transcendent source wasn't it? If 2 is the ideal (and I think this could be attacked logically but I will not bother to do that and instead take it as a given), and it is derived from a transcendent law-giver, would we not expect it to be the norm for all social animals? Do you suppose that when you are not looking, your dogs feel guilty about stealing the food from the other dog's bowl? I have four dogs - and I doubt this very much. I am the external law-giver as far as the dogs are concerned because I am, in effect, their alpha male. Ditto for humans for most of our history. But we have used our power of reason to elucidate general trends in naturally emerging morality. Why do you think it is often generally considered OK to kill a foreigner in war but not a citizen of your own country? Its mostly group-level social order that dictates morality and this arises naturally from the reality of human societies just as it arises naturally in a pack of domesticated wolves. Its not an absolute and immutable set of divine commandments - if it was we would indeed all have the exact same set. The "sanctity of life" (for example) for an intelligent species of social animal is not a moral absolute, its a sociological (ecological?) biological imperative. And I think, from a rational point of view, that notion has potentially far more persuasive moral power than the idea of an aloof and transcendent law-giver. But it does depend on humanity consisting of educated populations. So perhaps, for now, at least, your argument holds - "its wrong because God said so", probably still works better than "its wrong because that's what's best for us all" for most humans. But again, that makes the rational basis of religion utility rather than logic - doesn't it?
Correct. But there is no evidence that the information either precedes the organism or continues after the organism ceases to exist.
Physical laws and properties are information aren't they?
Again, properties and laws are information - what else can they be?
There aren't? So DNA is a covert agent operating outside physical laws?
You can look them up - try "self assembling chemical systems" and "self replicating chemical systems" (haven't done it but I'm sure you'll find something).
In your cells.
Yes, reproduction, metabolism, growth, response to stimuli,...what else...?
Yes, this is probably a process of self-assembly and autocatalysis - analogous to what is happening in your cells right now.
OK - not the name I would have chosen, but I can see where you are coming from.
Ah! So I get the unicorn and you get God. OK - that's a fair deal.
You do? OK - how exactly did 'God' get all the required non-living chemicals together to create the very first 'unicorn'?
People are divided by politics, national self interest, racism, sexism, greed, crime, poverty and a whole list of issues not related to religion. Your Utopian world is a chimera, a fantasy, very unreal
He created them, exactly what you believe non living, non intelligent random natural processes did. Ah, but the function of my cells is controlled by the encoded DNA information found there. No, gravity is not information, anymore than a spoon is. If you heat a spoon hot enough, it will melt, not because of information, but because the inherent natural properties of the metal. You can look at the metal anyway you choose, by any method you choose, and you will find no information. Take a strand of DNA, and you will find volumes of information encoded for the specific purpose of running the machinery of a cell. Look at it this way, take your spoon and a blank disc, neither has any information. Put a computer program on the disc and it is loaded with information, while the spoon is just a spoon. Why must the information come before the organism ? Because the organism must function to survive, if it doesn't function at inception it dies. If the information is not first, the organism cannot form, because the information also instructs and control's it's formation, as well as it's funcrion
So where is the information before the organism exists?
That's the question, isn't it ? It certainly is virtually impossible by random natural processes. However, if the organism was designed and created with the information in place, the question is answered.To me. there appears only two options, either believe the unproven impossible, or see the evidence of an intelligent design. That is what the evidence points to, no matter how impossible the conclusion seems.