One need ‘assume’ nothing of the sort.
Show me a scientific theory, explanation that makes no assumptions, has no axioms, can you do that?
No. There’s no reason to postulate an intelligent agency just because we can’t currently explain how the universe came to exist purely in naturalistic terms. That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.
I just showed the reason! The reason is that if we must assume the universe exists in order to develop and explanation for the presence of the universe, then we are not explaining anything. An explanation must begin with the thing we seek to explain not being there, assuming it is already there is rather insincere.
Was it a prebiotic relevant synthesis?
Was it a relay synthesis?
Yes. It’s called the Null Hypothesis. You sould learn something about it. The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated and not before. Your inane assumptions are vapid and utterly useless.
2 Likes
was responding to Cognostic “How do we know the universe is complex?”
Point: If it is not complex why are really well educated people not able to make the building blocks of life in a lab?
If the universe is not complex wouldnt we know what gravity is?
The device used to send you this message does not even begin to compare to DNA. Yet if someone asked me to use a computer that was assembled through mindless processes I would never use even if i tried.
Well, that’s a bit egocentric! Complex compared to what? Complex for whom?
1 Like
Does not compare for whom? You seem to think that your opinions carry the weight of the day. Perhaps to a biologist, DNA is far easier to understand than a computer.
1 Like
What gave rise to this agency?
1 Like
Correct. A computer is far more complex than DNA. DNA is a simple storage mechanism for genetic information and has no intelligence at all.
2 Likes
Hmm, since you plainly claimed there cannot be a material explanation, you may want to decide which claim you’re going to move forward with? Are you familiar with the law of non-contradiction?
Or we can admit we don’t know, and disbelieve claims that are based on logical fallacies like the false dichotomies and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies you are using. We do know natural phenomena are possible, and we do know the material universe exists, so using pure assumptions and fallacious argument to tack on things like supernatural and inexplicable magic there is no objective evidence is even possible, quite clearly violates Occam’s razor.
I made no such claim? You seem to be trying to set a record for straw men fallacies, I suggest you read more carefully.
So not uncorroborated anonymous hearsay then one imagines, and certainly not for appeals to mystery and supernatural magic, some of which deny known scientific facts.
Odd then that the entire scientific world don’t agree, flip on any news channel, and link the breaking story that science has evidenced a deity? I think we can imagine the global reaction if that were remotely the case. In fact atheism is far higher among scientists than in the general population , highest in elite bodies of scientists, which rather destroys your claim. Now if you think your arguments demonstrate that science evidence a deity, then publish your work, and we will all take a look at the response. At a bare minimum I’d expect theism to skyrocket among physicists.
Disingenuous, since all you have are assumptions, whereas science gathers objective evidence to support initial assumptions, creates models and tests these against reality by making predictions based on them. An accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific endeavour. What’s more all scientific idea must be falsifiable, and unfalsifiable notions are rejected as unscientific, they’re “not even wrong”.
Are you trying to assert it does not in fact exist?
That sounds like bullshit to me, have you published this idea in a worthy scientific journal? Maybe you could provide a citation for us?
Complex compared to what? We only have one universe to examine, how do you know any other kind of universe is possible? Also the inability of evolved apes to synthesise life doesn’t speak to the question at all, it seems like a false equivalence, in fact it rather demonstrates what Cogs question is inferring.
So when you say complex you mean one species of evolved ape currently perceive it as complex. Some people think algebra is inscrutable, some can’t even master the basics of good grammar. So when people claim the universe is complex they need to explain what they mean, and what they are inferring as the claim seems subjective and relative.
That’s a bizarre non-sequitur? You don’t seem to have addressed anything I said? Complexity does not infer design, objective evidence does. That aspects of nature are vastly more complex than designed things like computers rather proves that point as well.
1 Like
A better example they could have used would be a button perhaps, not at all complex and we know for an objective fact they are designed, destroying the notion complexity infers design.
Because they don’t know how to do it yet. How is that an argument for complexity? There are billions of things we do not know. They become not so complex once we understand them. Who actually cares if the universe is complex? I agree with the above, it’s mostly subjective. DNA is a chain of bioelectrical and chemical interactions it is not so much different from hydrogen atoms being attracted to oxygen atoms at its base. You have a self replicating molecule whose emergent property is life. So what?
Let’s grant you ‘complicated.’ The universe is complex. So what. It gets you no place near a God. If you are going to postulate a god, or a conscious being, or free floating consciousness as the cause of the universe, you must first demonstrate its existence. Y
You don’t know, therefore, God, IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Yet that is all you have posted. Pages and pages of you can’t explain this and you can’t explain that, therefore, ‘INTELLEGENT CREATOR.’ NO! It does not work that way. YOU have to actually have EVIDENCE for your claim. ‘An intelligent creator exists.’ Can you demonstrate this claim?
1 Like
here’s a very simple link for you. It may be too advanced, and I cannot be held responsible for the crow you will have to eat, or the blinding headaches that might ensue, but I tried.
https://studyfinds.org/rna-evolves-origins-of-life/#:~:text=Scientists%20in%20Japan%20have%20become,eventually%20transform%20into%20complex%20lifeforms.
1 Like
This guys whole argument is to take everything back to a place where we don’t know and then insert his ‘Intelligent creator.’ Stop playing his game. Just get to the basics. If you want to know this shit, go talk to a biochemist and not a bunch of atheists. Here are the facts, we know what we know and we don’t know shit beyond that. The fact that we do not know something does not mean 1. The universe is complex. 2. There is a creative intelligence behind everything. 3. A god exists.
W. the one making the claim, where is the evidence for the claim? He has been running a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument for pages and pages now… It’s really boring.
3 Likes
That and, most certainly, he’s switched the burden of proof for god(s) onto those who make no claim of one.
2 Likes
Just because we can’t understand something doesn’t mean that we should automatically invoke God.
It strikes me as extremely arrogant to claim that only God can explain things that we don’t understand.
Do you not see a sense of entitlement here?
That seems false to me. What exactly do you mean? Could you please list these basics to make it more clear (are you saying we can’t create atoms, or perhaps something totally different, I just can’t tell)?
4 Likes