Abiogenesis

[Brian2]

As previous cited concerning the reality of science and Methodological Naturalism, which you have failed to respond to.

The above is absolutely false and a distortion of science based on a religious agenda. Again . . . NO your view of consensus is NOT how it involves science. Please respond.

Still waiting . . . for you to respond coherently to my previous posts, which you are avoiding.

Science is based on the 'Objective Verifiable Evidence ONLY, and CANNOT propose hypothesis nor theories based on Theological/Philosophical 'beliefs.' Science is Neutral concerning Theological and Philosophical questions without 'Objective Verifiable Evidence.''

Again . . .

Still waiting . . .

I said nothing about science. Why did my post distort science?

 

[Brian2]

"Dead matter" comes to life every day. There is nothing that amazing about it.

And no, you like so many other believers, have made apparently false claims about scientists making assumptions. If you claim that they have you have the burden of proof. I do not know of any scientist that makes an assumption about God when it comes to their work. Some belive in a God and some don't. They all seem to know that one cannot find evidence for God either way.

Scientists just work on the things they have to work on and come to the conclusions that have to come to given the naturalistic methodology they work under whether they are believers or not.
So my words are not against the scientists but against those who take science as the be all and end all of knowledge. You post about life being chemicals all the way down as if it is what science has discovered.
Don't you realise that these sorts of questions cannot be answered by science. You say one things but believe another.

 

[Yazata]

Perhaps this quote might help illustrate where Brian2 disagrees with you:

Yes, we are in the various possible sequences of processes of determining the chemistry of how an where abiogenesis can take place. Yes, there are still unknowns that have nor been fully worked out, but science is progressing to resolve these problems.

I've questioned that one. I'm doubtful whether science will ever know how life originated. All that hypothesis and experiment can tell us today is (at best) how it might have happened. But given that these events appear to have happened some 3.5-4 billion years ago, and given how little physical evidence exists from that time, it's doubtful whether science will be ever be in any position to determine precisely how it did happen.

But Brian2's point is more fundamental than that.

All the evidence at present has determined that abiogenesis took place naturally.

That's where Brian2 raises his objection.

Science's methodological naturalism is an a-priori heuristic principle that says that science will only admit into its thinking information obtained by empirical means (and mathematics, a glaring problem case).

So science produces hypotheses about the origin of life that only admit natural causes accessible to the human senses (and their instrumental extensions).

Then laypeople are presented with conclusions such as "All the evidence at present has determined that abiogenesis took place naturally." Or perhaps the even more aggressive and less qualified claim that 'Science has determined that abiogenesis took place naturally'. An a-priori methodological premise that went in one end becomes atheist rhetoric when it comes out the other end. Science has supposedly explained (or is very close to explaining) the origin of life and God plays no role. Another blow against God.

I think that Brian's objection is that this is circular reasoning if science decided at the very beginning to only consider empirical information, natural causes etc. What started out at the beginning as a methodological premise has somehow transformed itself into an ontological conclusion: "...has determined that abiogenesis took place naturally". Somehow the original methodological naturalism has slippy-slid into metaphysical naturalism.

I think that Brian is arguing that's an illegitimate move, and I'm inclined to agree with him. At the very least, addressing his objection calls for more than insults and bluster.

Of course, God may be the Creative cause, and if this is true God Created through Natural Laws and natural processes that are the same as science observes and determines through scientific methods. If God is the Creator, God does not Create contradictions.

How could one know all that?

We know that abiogenesis took place either volcanic or mid ocean ridge subsurface environments like gas vent caverns, What is known is that at the time continental drift and continent formation began with the first mid ocean spreading zones the first most primitive life is found in subsurface cavern deposits.

Those are hypotheses, not knowledge. Hence Brian's point about speculation. In my opinion they are very plausible hypotheses and I accept them myself as legitimate hypothetical possibilities. But when their hypothetical nature fades away and they somehow become "facts" that science has somehow "determined", then critical objections are called for in my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

No, it does not mean that. There is no voting. One idea cannot beat another by one vote.

You seem to be purposely misunderstanding what I said.
But of course in some sciences it does seem to be a matter of numbers as to what is considered the consensus and the truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps this quote might help illustrate where Brian2 disagrees with you:



I've questioned that one. I'm doubtful whether science will ever know how life originated. All that hypothesis and experiment can tell us today is (at best) how it might have happened. But given that these events appear to have happened some 3.5-4 billion years ago, and given how little physical evidence exists from that time, it's doubtful whether science will be ever be in any position to determine precisely how it did happen.

But Brian2's point is more fundamental than that.



That's where Brian2 raises his objection.

Science's methodological naturalism is an a-priori heuristic principle that says that science will only admit into its thinking information obtained by empirical means (and mathematics, a glaring problem case).

So science produces hypotheses about the origin of life that only admit natural causes accessible to the human senses (and their instrumental extensions).

Then laypeople are presented with conclusions such as "All the evidence at present has determined that abiogenesis took place naturally." Or perhaps the even more aggressive and less qualified claim that 'Science has determined that abiogenesis took place naturally'. An a-priori methodological premise that went in one end becomes atheist rhetoric when it comes out the other end. Science has supposedly explained the origin of life and God nowhere appears. Another blow against God.

I think that Brian's objection is that this is circular reasoning if science decided at the very beginning to only consider empirical information, natural causes etc. What started out at the beginning as a methodological premise has somehow transformed itself into an ontological conclusion: "...has determined that abiogenesis took place naturally". Somehow the original methodological naturalism has slippy-slid into metaphysical naturalism.

I think that Brian is arguing that's an illegitimate move, and I'm inclined to agree with him. At the very least, addressing his objection calls for more than insults and bluster.



How could one know all that?



Those are hypotheses, not knowlege. Hence Brian's point about speculation. In my opinion they are very plausible hypotheses and I accept them myself as legitimate hypothetical possibilities. But when their hypothetical nature fades away and they somehow become "facts" that science has somehow "determined", then critical objections are called for in my opinion.

My response stands as made,

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to be purposely misunderstanding what I said.
But of course in some sciences it does seem to be a matter of numbers as to what is considered the consensus and the truth.

Absolutely NO. Numbers do not count as 'truth' in any science. 'Truth' is NOT a value judgement in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientists just work on the things they have to work on and come to the conclusions that have to come to given the naturalistic methodology they work under whether they are believers or not.
So my words are not against the scientists but against those who take science as the be all and end all of knowledge. You post about life being chemicals all the way down as if it is what science has discovered.

The bottomline in science is that science DOES NOT take science as the be all and end all of knowledge. You post about life being chemicals all the way down as if it is what science has discovered.

IT is by far phoney scientists and layman with a

Don't you realise that these sorts of questions cannot be answered by science. You say one things but believe another.

Science fully realizes that there are many questions such as 'Theological/ Philosophical questions without 'Objective Verifiable Evidence.' Science is decidedly neutral to all such questions.

I have repeated this many times and you have failed to acknowledge that science does not deal with 'truth' nor Theological/Philosophical questions outside science..

 

[Brian2]

No it is not consensus that makes the grade as far as the falsification of theories and hypothesis it is the conclusions of Methodological Naturalism based on the 'Objective Verifiable Evidence. What happens over time is the the weight of the 'objective Verifiable Evidence' and the repeared research that results in the consensus of scientists supporting the conclusions of falsifiable theories and hypothesis. ALL theories and hypothesis are subject to change and possible replaced or disgarded when new discoveries and research justifies it.

Example: Einsteins 'Theory of Relativity' and other conclusions based on his research was not universally accepted, but over time his work was more widely accepted and was the consensus held by most scientists. Nonetheless his theories and hypothesis have been modified and improved over time, and some of his work has been rejected and replaced by other theories and hypothesis, which had better evidence that supported them.

Again, again, and again . . .

Science CANNOT leave God out of the equation, because there is no equation possible that could include nor exclude the existence nor non-existence of God. Science is neutral to ALL theological/philosophical questions of ALL religions.

The only place the Bible has in science is the academic historical, archaeological, document research, and nothing to do with the 'truth' od the theological content of the text. This true of ALL the religious claims of 'belief' of ALL the anceint scripture of ALL the ancient religions. Philosophical apologetics is the field of stufy and arguments for the beliefs of religions not science.

Are you deaf or lack the basic English to understand the many posts that have clearly and specifically addressed this issue.'

You're right that I do have a religious agenda.
That doesn't mean that I am wrong however.
You seem to misread what I say because of your science agenda.
I'm not really attacking science but the conclusions that are drawn from science because people just don't know that science can't say yay or nay to there being a God or creator,,,,,,,,,,,,,and of course many of them seem to do that on purpose and to even say that science does not have a naturalistic methodology but that science has actually shown that there is no need for a God and that since science can find no God, that science has shown scientifically that there is no God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tear down chemicals and all you have is chemicals.
You are almost saying that science has shown that life is no more than complex chemicals. Scientific speculation has turned into what you believe, or maybe what you believe is justified only by speculation.
Chemical all the way up until life suddenly appears. The chemicals become conscious. That is what the speculation is. The naturalistic methodology has turned into something that has been shown by science to be true for many people because they cannot accept anything as true that science has not discovered,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,except the speculations that agree with the naturalistic methodology.

That is what it looks like so far. There does not appear to be any evidence for anything else. Do you have anything besides belief?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists just work on the things they have to work on and come to the conclusions that have to come to given the naturalistic methodology they work under whether they are believers or not.
So my words are not against the scientists but against those who take science as the be all and end all of knowledge. You post about life being chemicals all the way down as if it is what science has discovered.
Don't you realise that these sorts of questions cannot be answered by science. You say one things but believe another.

Some questions cannot be answered by science. If you want too claim that life is one of them the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be purposely misunderstanding what I said.
But of course in some sciences it does seem to be a matter of numbers as to what is considered the consensus and the truth.

You specifically said that there is a vote. Scientists judge each other and accept ideas based upon how well ideas are supported. That is about it.

 

[Brian2]

Absolutely NO. Numbers do not count as 'truth' in any science. 'Truth' is NOT a value judgement in science.

Truth is not a value judgement in science but if a majority thinks one way then that is what we hear as being the consensus even though there are others who's opinion is not the consensus.

 

[Brian2]

The bottomline in science is that science DOES NOT take science as the be all and end all of knowledge. You post about life being chemicals all the way down as if it is what science has discovered.

I think a problem you have is that you do not read what I have said.

Science fully realizes that there are many questions such as 'Theological/ Philosophical questions without 'Objective Verifiable Evidence.' Science is decidedly neutral to all such questions.

I have repeated this many times and you have failed to acknowledge that science does not deal with 'truth' nor Theological/Philosophical questions outside science..

Science does not deal with those questions outside science. It is both scientists and others who deal with them outside science and when non scientists hear that science sees life as coming from chemicals and that life could be on other planets because the chemicals are there it certainly gives the impression to laymen that science sees life as chemicals only. And let's face it, that is what science is seeking to show imo and that even consciousness comes from those chemicals.
I know you want to defend poor defenceless science, but maybe inadvertently it is heading towards showing that God is not needed. But of course it has not succeeded, it hypothesises only, but the public does not know that, especially impressionable kids who love science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Truth is not a value judgement in science but if a majority thinks one way then that is what we hear as being the consensus even though there are others who's opinion is not the consensus.

No, science does not deal with "truth". The closest to it would be is a claim that is well supported and has never shown to be false. All beliefs in science are contingent. They are evidence based and if new evidence arises beliefs can and will change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think a problem you have is that you do not read what I have said.



Science does not deal with those questions outside science. It is both scientists and others who deal with them outside science and when non scientists hear that science sees life as coming from chemicals and that life could be on other planets because the chemicals are there it certainly gives the impression to laymen that science sees life as chemicals only. And let's face it, that is what science is seeking to show imo and that even consciousness comes from those chemicals.
I know you want to defend poor defenceless science, but maybe inadvertently it is heading towards showing that God is not needed. But of course it has not succeeded, it hypothesises only, but the public does not know that, especially impressionable kids who love science.

The evidence only shows that life is chemical only. There is evidence for that. If you want to claim that it is more than chemical then you take on a burden of proof for that claim. You cannot win by default.

 

[Brian2]

That is what it looks like so far. There does not appear to be any evidence for anything else. Do you have anything besides belief?

What? Do you have anything besides belief? How can you say "that is what it looks like so far"? That is like saying that if science does not find God while studying chemicals then life is nothing but chemicals.
You forget that science cannot answer those philosophical/theological questions but to you "that is what it looks like so far" as if it can.

 

[Brian2]

Some questions cannot be answered by science. If you want too claim that life is one of them the burden of proof is upon you.

That is what science is doing for me. But it will not end even in 100 years. Naturalistic methodology forbids that there is admission that Goddidit, it just stays in the too hard basket until more evidence is found or something.

 

[Brian2]

You specifically said that there is a vote. Scientists judge each other and accept ideas based upon how well ideas are supported. That is about it.

There are differences of opinion in some sciences and sometimes the minority view is correct imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what science is doing for me. But it will not end even in 100 years. Naturalistic methodology forbids that there is admission that Goddidit, it just stays in the too hard basket until more evidence is found or something.

Not so. There is simply no evidence for Godidit. The burden of proof lies upon the person making that claim. You should be asking yourself why the supporters of Godidit, and there are believers in the sciences, cannot support that.

As much as you claim that there is a supposed rule against Godidit you cannot seem to find one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are differences of opinion in some sciences and sometimes the minority view is correct imo.

Great. Now find some reliable evidence, which in this case would be scientific evidence, that supports your beliefs.