Re: Ool - out at first base?

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:10:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/12/2024 1:17 am, Martin Harran wrote:

[snip for focus]

Let's say for a moment that naturalistic formation of life is not
possible, and life was created by God through supernatural intervention.
>
Which is in fact the contention of the creationist camp, myself included.
>
Your comments above seem to make no allowance for this option. You seem
to be saying, regardless of any calculated or claimed probabilities or
potential natural limitations, life happened, and happened by natural
causes. The only legitimate activity now is to work backwards to
establish how nature may have done it.
>
Is that in effect what you're saying?

Not quite. What I am saying is there is no reason not to think that
life came into being through natural processes. The fact that science
cannot at this stage explain exactly how it all happened is not, on
its own, reason to dismiss that. If you want to dismiss it then you
have to offer some sort of credible alternative and "God spoke" is not
a credible alternative - I'll say more about that below.

I don't at all dismiss God from the process. In a reply to my own
post, I gave you my ideas about how God could have been the driving
force behind the processes without invoking or interfering directly in
them. What do you see wrong with that proposal?

>

 

>
Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For
example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates
precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a
question of probability.

 
It's a long time since I read "Climbing Mount Improbable so I'm not
sure in what context Dakins used probability but I'd be absolutely
certain that it wasn't to support the idea of divine intervention!
 

>

I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your
other suggestions.

 
I did make 5 suggestions with probability possibly the least important
so I'd certainly like to hear your response to the others.
 

>

>
#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.

>
I use "designer" and "supernatural causes" for accuracy, not evasion.

In what way are they more accurate and how do you reconcile the idea
of designer (who works with trial and error) with an omnipotent God
who can do anything directly without fiddling about with different
ideas, most of which end up on the junkhaeap (extinct species)?

#

If
an appeal is made to non-natural causes on the basis of scientifically
determined inadequacy of natural explanations (say), all that can be
inferred in this context is that the alternative cause must be
"supernatural".
>
Personally, I'm happy to say "God", but not from science, rather from
faith and theology.
>
>

>
#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

>
There's not a symmetry here with identical requirements. It's not a case
of science and the scientific method being applied equally to the nature
hypothesis and the God hypothesis.
>
Rather, it would be science finding (provisional) inadequacy of
naturalistic explanations, and that finding being a scientific pointer,
a point of departure, to the God hypothesis.

Science does not "find inadequacy" in the sense you use it. You see
what you regard as inadequate as grounds for dismissal; science sees
it as a motivator to trigger further investigation. Science doesn't
just give up after some undefined period of time as you seem to think
it should -It's a never-ending process, that's why scientists are
still working on OOL, they are satisfied with all the answers so they
are continually trying to dig deeper.

Here's a thought for you. Depending on how you identify intelligence,
intelligent man has been around for at least 2.4 million years. At
least 90% (I'd say 99%+ but let's not argue about it) of all
scientific knowledge we have has been developed in the last 400 or so
years, less than 20 % of the minimum time that human intelligence has
existed. Never mind this year or next year, what makes you think that
science won't come to fully understand OOL over the next 400 years, or
even the next 2.4 million years? What is your cut off point for
science to give up?

>
Note that I'm not saying this is a requirement for belief in God.
Rather, it would merely provide additional evidence, in this case from
science itself.

How do you think science could go about finding evidence from the
supernatural?

>
I've called it a "point of departure" from science, not because it
undermines or contradicts science, but because it is located beyond the
bounds of science, and in the domain of metaphysics and theology.

If it's beyond the bounds of science then that contradicts the
possibility of what you said just above about "additional evidence, in
this case from science itself."

>

>
#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.
>

>
>
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.
>
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.
>
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.
>
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.
>
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.
>
God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.
>
Etc.

Is "God spoke …" seriously the best you have to offer?

Can you offer any suggestions as to how he went about speaking; for
example, did he speak the precursors of the protocell into existence
and then go on to speak the protocell itself into existence or did he
just do the precursors and leave them to get on themselves with the
job of making the protocell?

>

#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

>
Nature provides general revelation: "For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
>
The Bible provides special revelation: of us having a relationship with
him and him sending his son to us.

If God ultimately wanted to make man *in his own image*, why would he
have bothered farting about with protocells and the like?

>

>
That should be enough to be going on with!
>

>
>
>
>

>

>
To recap some points:
>
- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then
that is potentially a hard stop
>
- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds
supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for
millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility
>

[...]
>

2CO%2CP-R