So here's how I read you. You understand yourself to be an especially patient, curious, and experienced student of the patterns of life. Great. The implication, however, may be that others here are not. You are welcome to that belief. In my experience, lots of guys think they are the smartest person they know. I know I do.

So of course I'm not exactly dazzled by your bare assurances. You haven't responded to my ideas with sufficient detail or thought to even convince me that you understand them. That's OK. We're on stage, are we not? I'm contributing to a dialogue that others can read for what I hope is their amusement. Anyway, I wish you well and will probably move on for now.

Surely the evolution of complex life from such a perfectly formed base of molecular and then cellular interaction points to intelligent design. — MikeL

I tried this argument and people said:

If [conscious agency] then [design] is true but the converse: If [design] then [conscious agency] isn't true.

What's your response to this?

Hi Mad Fool, how do they justify the assertion that if design then conscious agency isn't true?

If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree?

how do they justify the assertion that if design then conscious agency isn't true — MikeL

It appears that we have to justify that if there's design then there's a designer (a conscious agency) since we make that claim and arguments such as your depend on this premise being true.

If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree? — MikeL

I'm not sure how this helps your argument for God.

It appears that we have to justify that if there's design then there's a designer (a conscious agency) since we make that claim and arguments such as your depend on this premise being true. — TheMadFool

But that's crazy. It's like looking at a rocket ship parked on the side of the road and refusing to believe it was intelligently designed because you can't locate a designer.

If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree?
— MikeL

I'm not sure how this helps your argument for God. — TheMadFool

Well, wouldn't it make sense that if God had designed us, he would want us to have an emergent consciousness so we could sense his presence?

You understand yourself to be an especially patient, curious, and experienced student of the patterns of life. Great. The implication, however, may be that others here are not. You are welcome to that belief. In my experience, lots of guys think they are the smartest person they know. I know I do. — t0m

There is no one smarter than anyone else.

Philosophy is about developing the observational skills about nature and life, the life we are experiencing. It is the only way to understand life. Developing such skills takes patience and practice as does everything else in life. Those who wish to skip the process simply become storytellers.

I'm interested in experiences of others and myself, other than the experience of creating stories. I know all about this, I read fiction all of the time.

If no one is smarter than anyone else, then why would you need to tell me this? Why would you need to explain to me, an equally smart person, what philosophy is really about? It's a performative contradiction.

Finally, good fiction tends to reveal life. It is hyper-real. Dostoevsky comes to mind.

If no one is smarter than anyone else, then why would you need to tell me this? — t0m

You brought it up.

Why would you need to explain to me, an equally smart person, what philosophy is really about? — t0m

Learning to observe has nothing to do with being smart. Learning to pause and ruminate has nothing to do with being smart. Learning has nothing to do with being smart.

Finally, good fiction tends to reveal life. It is hyper-real. Dostoevsky comes to mind. — t0m

It reveals oneself which provides clues to the nature of life, but it still requires observation and even more so intuition. It's detective work not free flowing imagination. They are different.

We can drop the "smart" theme. That's fine.

As far as I can tell, you've mostly described in vague generality how philosophy should be done. I think it's only fair to ask you for the results of doing philosophy this way. What have you discovered? What do you now know that others might benefit from knowing?

What is your vision of life? Do you trust mainstream science? Do you believe in God? If so, how do you understand or envision God? What is the purpose, if any, of life? I still don't have a picture of what you believe. Where are you generally coming from?

I think it's only fair to ask you for the results of doing philosophy this way. — t0m

Having a deeper understanding of life allows one to find a healthier and qualitatively more nourishing life with broad implications. It is analogous to becoming a more skilled sailor with greater navigational abilities.

What I have learned is meaningless to you. One must learn for themselves. If I told you I understand how to navigate better, does this have meaning to you? There are no shortcuts, not for music, not for arts, not for sports, and not for the philosophy of life. To achieve this one must have desire because it takes great patience and lots of attention.

My vision for life is to explore, learn, share, care, nurture, and grow (evolve).

But that's crazy. It's like looking at a rocket ship parked on the side of the road and refusing to believe it was intelligently designed because you can't locate a designer. — MikeL

I thought the same too. However, look at what you're comparing the rocket to? It's ok to compare the rocket to a car or a house. This comparison seems alright if you want to make the design-designer argument.

However, comparing the universe to a rocket or a car or a plane is problematic. Only likes can be compared to likes, do you agree? If yes then the rocket-universe analogy fails because the universe isn't like anything man has created? Those who argue against the design argument for god say that the correct analogy would be a universe that is designed and has a creator to our universe. What do you think?

Well, wouldn't it make sense that if God had designed us, he would want us to have an emergent consciousness so we could sense his presence? — MikeL

It makes sense to us assuming God exists and that's what we want to prove isn't it?

I take your point Mad Fool, but do you see how the argument shifts focus immediately when they demand you to explain the creator? You have to hold your ground. You are no longer defining the evidence for creation, you are being asked to describe the thing that made it. How can you do that? In the meantime the other side doesn't have to do any work at all to justify their assertion that life arises spontaneously through chemical interaction. They have no solid case, which is why they turn the argument back on you rather than outlining their own proofs. If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them.

That the universe is designed and that's where the creator has made his mark does make a lot of sense. It is a totally mechanistic approach to life and the universe allowing life to spontaneously arise and allowing God to intervene only once, rather than twice. I have no problem with that, so long as the other side is able to explain how life originated naturally: but they can't.

I think it must be remembered that there is a huge gap - HUGE gap between the order we see inside a nucleus and the rest of the body of complex organisms and the few fragments of nucelotides and amino acids we are able to generate in a test tube trying to simulate early Earth conditions. The only arguments they can use to bridge the enormous gap is to say it was selected for - which is rubbish because simultaneous selection of two or more spontaneously arising traits is required for many systems to function. It also doesn't solve the chicken and egg paradox of DNA encoding the proteins that regulate it as well as encoding the other proteins that are needed to keep the cell cycles going. How did that happen?

I'm reading Hoffman's Life Ratchets at the moment and he's making a stab at explaining molecular formation - which is still a billion miles from the generation of specific molecules for specific tasks.

At best, scientists can recreate some of the base components used in the construction of something incredibly complex - and why wouldn't they be able to - after all it is no secret that the continuation of life requires the storehouse of these chemicals of nature. But saying that we know life arose naturally because we can form some of these base chemicals is an argument comparable to saying that we know a house arises naturally because we can get clay out of the ground and in certain conditions heat it and shape it into bricks.

It makes sense to us assuming God exists and that's what we want to prove isn't it? — TheMadFool

Precisely. It is because we are aware of ourselves, can stare in awe at nature, and understand we are more than the sum of our parts that drives us to seek out the places where the creator may have left his fingerprint. We feel unique and transcendent above simple cause and effect relationships.

so long as the other side is able to explain how life originated naturally: but they can't. — MikeL

I just don't see how you get from the "haven't" we could all agree on to the "can't" you insist on.

As you're reading Life's Ratchet, keep an eye on the dates in the later chapters. An enormous amount of what we now know about the internal workings of cells is no more than a decade or two old. The paint has barely dried on the machines and techniques that produced this knowledge.

Hoffman's book gives an overview of where biology is nowadays on what life actually is, how it works. Cells, it turns out, are nothing at all like what I learned in AP Biology a hundred years ago! That means we're only now beginning to see the shape of what a theory of abiogenesis would look like. It's helpful to know what you're explaining the origin of, don't you think?

In the meantime the other side doesn't have to do any work at all to justify their assertion that life arises spontaneously through chemical interaction. They have no solid case, which is why they turn the argument back on you rather than outlining their own proofs. If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them. — MikeL

Well, it seems that we have to slide the viewing window back to the origin of the issue. We can then see that the first move in this game was made by theists. Theists argued for the presence of a creator based on design. The atheistic position is the refutation, the second move, so to speak. The ball is in the theists' court I'm afraid.

I'm agnostic. I think our knowledge is too limited and our ignorance too vast to come to any definite conclusion.

saying that we know life arose naturally because we can form some of these base chemicals is an argument comparable to saying that we know a house arises naturally because we can get clay out of the ground and in certain conditions heat it and shape it into bricks. — MikeL

Well, I understand the scientific position as that of remaining within the bounds of the observable and measurable. Science is descriptive - it studies phenomena and looks for patterns. Many patterns have been discovered; the so-called laws of nature. This information is used by theists to claim God's existence but, as I said above, atheists think this analogy is like comparing apples to oranges and they're right. We don't have a collection of universes governed by laws made by a creator. If this were the case then the analogy would be a good one but it isn't so it fails.

Precisely. It is because we are aware of ourselves, can stare in awe at nature, and understand we are more than the sum of our parts that drives us to seek out the places where the creator may have left his fingerprint. We feel unique and transcendent above simple cause and effect relationships. — MikeL

The universe is awesome in what sense? We're alive but life exists on only one planet and that too confined to certain areas on the globe. Could it be that our awe is misplaced and that we should actually rue our miniscule solitary existence in the universe?

The universe is awesome in what sense? We're alive but life exists on only one planet and that too confined to certain areas on the globe. Could it be that our awe is misplaced and that we should actually rue our miniscule solitary existence in the universe? — TheMadFool

We c are still discovering new types of life on this planet in areas we thought life couldn't exist. Have patience. The universe is quite large and there is plenty of time to explore it.

Hoffman's book gives an overview of where biology is nowadays on what life actually is, how it works. Cells, it turns out, are nothing at all like what I learned in AP Biology a hundred years ago! That means we're only now beginning to see the shape of what a theory of abiogenesis would look like. It's helpful to know what you're explaining the origin of, don't you think? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm enjoying the read Srap Tasmaner. I can't wait to see how close he can get to bridging the gap.

I just don't see how you get from the "haven't" we could all agree on to the "can't" you insist on. — Srap Tasmaner

Ok then, let me ask you directly. Can you?

We c are still discovering new types of life on this planet in areas we thought life couldn't exist. Have patience. The universe is quite large and there is plenty of time to explore it. — Rich

I don't know. What do you expect to find? More life? And how does that help arguments for God?

I expect that we will always be discovering new things. I discover new things every day in my life.

As for God, I see no need to create something to replace my own mind. My mind is more than happy to acknowledge itself and everything it does.

If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them.— MikeL

Well, it seems that we have to slide the viewing window back to the origin of the issue. We can then see that the first move in this game was made by theists. Theists argued for the presence of a creator based on design. The atheistic position is the refutation, the second move, so to speak. The ball is in the theists' court I'm afraid. — TheMadFool

This is a very weak position to take in an argument. You might as well just give up before you begin. The belief in God far outdates science. Scientists are the new kids on the block claiming its all crap. Demand them to prove it. They will respond thus:
1. It is not science's job to prove, only disprove.
2. Well at least we're trying to prove it, which is more than we can say for you.
3. Here are some fragments that might be evidence of something, which is more than you have.
4. How can you believe Noah fitted all those animals into an ark. Are you that stupid?

This is all shorthand for - we've got basically nothin' to back up our attacks on the idea of God.

Trust me, if they did, they would argue the hell out of it. They are paper tigers.

Well, I understand the scientific position as that of remaining within the bounds of the observable and measurable. Science is descriptive - it studies phenomena and looks for patterns. — TheMadFool

That's fine. Science is a very worthwhile endeavor and I for one find the study of it fascinating and am thankful for a lot of the technological outcomes such as medicine etc. But, by the same token if the scientists (not science) that claim that God is not real haven't got the firepower to take on believers after making their claims, they should stay out of the ring and not hide behind the rules of science when we fire back. They should stick to science, don't you think?

This information is used by theists to claim God's existence but, as I said above, atheists think this analogy is like comparing apples to oranges and they're right. We don't have a collection of universes governed by laws made by a creator. If this were the case then the analogy would be a good one but it isn't so it fails. — TheMadFool

Theists try to get in the ring with scientists to defend their faith. The only language they can use to present the case is science, no other logic works on scientists. Unfortunately they often get outmatched because they simply haven't got the knowledge or understanding to draw on.

How do you know that the laws of the universe are not governed by a creator? Atoms forming into machines that run around building things doesn't seem a little fishy to you?

Also the analogy of the brick house has nothing to do with theism. It stands on its own merits as a critique.

Can you? — MikeL

Can I what? Explain how life arose on Earth? No.

If your argument is that I, Srap Tasmaner can't explain it, then you win, man.

If you mean that no one alive can, you probably win that one too. Maybe. People have theories. Maybe somebody's already got a perfectly good theory we just don't know it yet. I'm sure there are bars where you can't get away from the biologists sharing their theories of abiogenesis.

I took you to mean there was some reason why it cannot possibly be done, not now, not ever, not by anyone, that there is some logical obstacle that makes achieving this task impossible-- rather like Michael Behe's claim that the bacterial flagellum could not possibly be explained by evolution, that sort of thing. (Of course, he was wrong.)

It's that claim I don't understand. Especially not right now, with everything going on in biology these days. Don't you think there are more discoveries to come? Aren't you excited to see what "we" (by which I mean folks like Hoffman) learn?

Demand them to prove it. — MikeL

Atheists don't have to prove anything. They just have to disprove theism. At least that's how it looks to me. As I said, the first move was theism and atheists have responded to theistic arguments through refutation.

As for science, it's not on any side of the debate. As I said, scientific discoveries are proposed as evidence for God - the design argument is based on the order/patterns that exist in the universe. Atheists think this argument from design is flawed.

One specific area where science actually disagrees with relgion is on the matter of creation - the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years or so old and Geology says its 4 billion years old. So, who is right? Evolution too is considered anti-religious in a similar fashion. What do you think? Is science anti-theism?

How do you know that the laws of the universe are not governed by a creator? — MikeL

That question cuts both ways: How do you know that the laws of the universe were put into place by a creator?

That question cuts both ways: How do you know that the laws of the universe were put into place by a creator? — TheMadFool

You see. Rather than answering the question it is a redirection.

As for science, it's not on any side of the debate. — TheMadFool

I agree, that is why I specified scientists, not science.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. — TheMadFool

Oh, they must love debates then.

the design argument is based on the order/patterns that exist in the universe. Atheists think this argument from design is flawed. — TheMadFool

Yes, you are right, they do. But with nothing to prove, I guess they just have to say theists are wrong to win the argument, which is pretty much what they do.

One specific area where science actually disagrees with relgion is on the matter of creation - the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years or so old and Geology says its 4 billion years old. So, who is right? Evolution too is considered anti-religious in a similar fashion. What do you think? Is science anti-theism? — TheMadFool

I am always careful not to conflate religion and the belief in a god. A believer doesn't have to tether themselves to the Old Testament just because they sense a higher power. What do I think about the 6000 year old story? Yeah, most probably wrong, but when under attack ants will defend every grain of dirt on their anthill.

Having said that, geological dating, it is all based on fossil records and geological strata and carbon dating. I don't know the field but I have an inkling that if I did I could show you the weaknesses in that system of measurement which at least would open the possibility that it could be 6000 years old.

Is science anti-theist? No, but a hell of a lot of vocal scientists are. Even Hoffman seems to have an air of it about him in his writing, but at least he's putting his money where his mouth is, and you've got a respect a person for that.

As to evolution, is it anti-theist? Nah, not really, it's just a very cold description of nature. I'm sure there's better ones. I guess though it depends on where you want to place God in the equation.