Life From Dirt?

[RestlessSoul]

So do leprechauns and unicorns exist? The *ideas* certainly exist, but do those ideas refer to some things that actually exist?

Most people would answer no, they do not.

Now the question is why not? What is it that separates ideas that refer to something that exists and those that do not?

The obvious answer is that no unicorns or leprechauns have actually been detected. And, in the absence of such detection, their non-existence is far more likely than their existence.

Now, in what way is the idea of God different than that of a leprechaun? I would argue that there is no difference in any way that is relevant to actual existence. God is certainly given more properties, and often quite bizarre properties. But that makes God *less* likely to actually exist, not more so.

Arguing about 'timeless existence' is irrelevant unless you can *independently* justify the existence of such timelessness. Otherwise is becomes simply another prop to an already doubtful existence claim. And that prop, because it is not known to exist, makes the existence of God less likely again. Any time you explain away an argument by claiming God has another unusual property, without showing that the property actually manifests in the real world, only makes the existence of God *less* reasonable.

Do you think numbers and words have qualities only in the sense that Leprechauns and Unicorns do? Or do some of those things which manifest exclusively in human consciousness, have more substance than others? Which is closer to reality, closer to actually being a thing in itself; Schrodinger’s equation, or an Hibernian sprite?

 

[exchemist]

Well experientially, yes actually. Our internal perception of the external world is the mind’s interpretation of information conveyed by the senses. Beyond that, we have the capacity to enlarge our understanding through the use of abstract thought.

So our experience of the world happens in the mind. And our understanding of that world is predicated at least in part, on abstractions. This does not btw, necessitate solipsism; I absolutely do believe in the existence of an objective reality that exists outside of my own subjective awareness. But I can only ever experience that subjectively. And my belief in a world external to myself requires of me an act of faith.

Well then you accept there are features of that objective reality that are distinct from the world of the mind.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think numbers and words have qualities only in the sense that Leprechauns and Unicorns do?

I'm cautious of the word 'only'. In what senses do words and numbers have qualities and how are those qualities similar to those leprechauns and unicorns?

Well, words and numbers are aspects of language that can be used to describe things. Leprechauns and unicorns are not. So there's a difference.

But none of these exist in the real world. In this sense, deities are closer to leprechauns and unicorns: fictional creatures. At least words and numbers are useful for developing theories.

Or do some of those things which manifest exclusively in human consciousness, have more substance than others?

I'm not sure the word 'substance' is relevant here.

Which is closer to reality, closer to actually being a thing in itself; Schrodinger’s equation, or an Hibernian sprite?

Schrodinger's equation is a description that matches reality very well in many situations. Sprites are fictional.

 

[InChrist]

There is no such thing as a "God theory". There isn't even anything that could be called a god hypothesis. The different hypothesis for abiogenesis at least propose a mechanism - the god story just assumes that life was poofed into existence by magic.

No, the account states that the Creator, an eternal Self-existent Being, spoke life into existence.

 

[Polymath257]

Well experientially, yes actually. Our internal perception of the external world is the mind’s interpretation of information conveyed by the senses. Beyond that, we have the capacity to enlarge our understanding through the use of abstract thought.

So our experience of the world happens in the mind. And our understanding of that world is predicated at least in part, on abstractions. This does not btw, necessitate solipsism; I absolutely do believe in the existence of an objective reality that exists outside of my own subjective awareness. But I can only ever experience that subjectively. And my belief in a world external to myself requires of me an act of faith.

OK, but in proposing a God, you are asking for an additional act of faith. In the case of an external world, we have sensory information that clearly has patterns and reliability. That is why we make a *model* that includes an external world and then *test* that hypothesis via observation.

No such model for a God is testable.

 

[Polymath257]

No, the account states that the Creator, an eternal Self-existent Being, spoke life into existence.

OK, so a sound wave (spoke) is capable of bringing life into existence. That is quite a claim. Do you have any evidence of this being possible (or even plausible)? Do you have any evidence that a 'self-existent being' that can speak is possible? And is the creative act limited to life or does it encompass other things as well? if so, were different words used? What is the mechanism?

This is nowhere close to being a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis since it is untestable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well then you accept there are features of that objective reality that are distinct from the world of the mind.

Yes, I do. That is my unconfirmed and unfalsifiable belief.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I do. That is my unconfirmed and unfalsifiable belief.

Good. That distinction is what we are talking about then, isn’t it?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not sure the word 'substance' is relevant here.

Schrodinger's equation is a description that matches reality very well in many situations. Sprites are fictional.

Ideas can be said to have substance, can they not? Not literally, but if I say that some constructions of philosophic thought carry more weight than others, you will understand what I mean by that.

And is it not possible to at least consider Schrodinger’s equation as evidence for the existence of a Logos, an underlying cosmic order? From which conception, it’s only a short step to an underlying creative intelligence which animates the universe? Just a thought, which of course I expect you to rebel against.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Good. That distinction is what we are talking about then, isn’t it?

That indistinct and somewhat arbitrary boundary, let’s say

 

[Heyo]

If it is impossible for 'science' to detect something (meaning it is impossible to detect), then it simply doesn't exist. that is, in part, how the term 'exists' is defined.

Not according to my definition of "exists".
5 Planes of Existence

Peter Parker exists in the MCU.

Try to find scientific evidence that France "exists".

 

[Heyo]

No, the account states that the Creator, an eternal Self-existent Being, spoke life into existence.

That's what I said. "Speaking into existence" is a creation spell. Magic.

 

[Polymath257]

Ideas can be said to have substance, can they not? Not literally, but if I say that some constructions of philosophic thought carry more weight than others, you will understand what I mean by that.

It means that they correspond better with reality, no?

And is it not possible to at least consider Schrodinger’s equation as evidence for the existence of a Logos, an underlying cosmic order?

Not in the Platonic sense, no. That things have properties does not imply an overall 'cosmic order' in that Platonic sense.

From which conception, it’s only a short step to an underlying creative intelligence which animates the universe? Just a thought, which of course I expect you to rebel against.

That seems like a HUGE leap to me. Are you claiming that order can only come from an intelligence? or that it is even the case most times? Given the vast number of self-assembling systems in the universe (stars, galaxies, planets, chemicals, etc), why would one leap to an intelligence being involved?

In fact, I would say that the vast majority of 'ordered' systems are so because of processes not involving intelligence (a very complex and complicated system). The only ones we know of that *do* involve intelligence happen on one small planet we call Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

Not according to my definition of "exists".
5 Planes of Existence

Peter Parker exists in the MCU.

Try to find scientific evidence that France "exists".

In the sense of a cultural convention? That is easy enough.

 

[Polymath257]

Not according to my definition of "exists".
5 Planes of Existence

Peter Parker exists in the MCU.

Try to find scientific evidence that France "exists".

I would disagree with your characterization of numbers and forms. Ideals are cultural and should be included in category 3.

 

[Heyo]

I would disagree with your characterization of numbers and forms. Ideals are cultural and should be included in category 3.

I know. You've stated that you are in the "invented" camp. I'm in "discovered". But that is tangential to the current discussion. Important is that the (hard) science deals only with "real" stuff and that unreal (abstract) stuff exists.
But even that is a tangent (that should be clear by now) and we can go back to discussing abiogenesis in this thread.

 

[exchemist]

Ideas can be said to have substance, can they not? Not literally, but if I say that some constructions of philosophic thought carry more weight than others, you will understand what I mean by that.

And is it not possible to at least consider Schrodinger’s equation as evidence for the existence of a Logos, an underlying cosmic order? From which conception, it’s only a short step to an underlying creative intelligence which animates the universe? Just a thought, which of course I expect you to rebel against.

Well this is Spinoza's, or Einstein's, conception of God, I suppose, identifying "God" with the order that seems to determine the operation of nature.

I don't think Schrödinger's equation is evidence of anything, though. It is a man-made abstract model, that captures some aspects of the order that we detect by observations of nature, in the most objective way we can. The observations are the evidence, not the model.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well this is Spinoza's, or Einstein's, conception of God, I suppose, identifying "God" with the order that seems to determine the operation of nature.

I don't think Schrödinger's equation is evidence of anything, though. It is a man-made abstract model, that captures some aspects of the order that we detect by observations of nature, in the most objective way we can. The observations are the evidence, not the model.

But that is an abstract itself as that "are" is not the same version of the verb be for the observation of the cat is multicolored. You are conflating 2 different versions of the verb be. The one is in the mind and the other is an external sensory experience.
So there is no evidence in the universe, it is only in your mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, I think they have 'reasons' in the sense that they live in societies where most people believe and so it is easier to go along. I doubt that most people think too deeply about these questions.

There is a long tradition of religious belief in most societies. That tradition continues whether or not it is reasonable to actually follow the tradition. It can give comfort and gives rules for living when you don't want to spend the time and energy thinking more deeply and learning about the alternatives.

But I think that the vast majority of people believe because of how they were raised and the fact that it can be very uncomfortable to go against the pressure of friends, family, and society, not to mention the difficulty of reaching your own conclusions. It is much easier to just follow everyone else.

Any information as to when you think religion got started on this planet?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well this is Spinoza's, or Einstein's, conception of God, I suppose, identifying "God" with the order that seems to determine the operation of nature.

I don't think Schrödinger's equation is evidence of anything, though. It is a man-made abstract model, that captures some aspects of the order that we detect by observations of nature, in the most objective way we can. The observations are the evidence, not the model.

The fact that we form theories for the existence of the cosmos is remarkable. Seems even Einstein was in awe. So if the universe is without purpose, does it seem reasonable to you that humans above all other lifeforms (such as gorillas) devised a system involving religion?