Matheson’s open letter still speaks for itself perfectly well without me needing to add to it or defend it.

“One might think that professors Matheson, Hunt and Moran would address the conceptual issue calmly, rationally, and collegially. But they don’t; instead, they stoop to misrepresentation and ridicule. And one might think that they would address the empirical issue by citing published scientific evidence. But they don’t; instead, they simply proclaim themselves the only authorities on the subject.”

“Who you gonna believe, them or your own eyes?”

The link you reference provides evidence for the point of my article. Mr. Matheson’s “open letter” is long on accusations and personal attacks and short on an objective look at the evidence. He is condescending to Mr. Meyer and his colleagues rather than spending time dealing with his arguments (the other blog posts you reference take the same tone). I’m sure you can find someone on the ID side doing the same. If science is such a dispassionate, objective search for truth, why is all this emotionalism so prevalent?

Again, I suggest that you read Meyer’s book for yourself rather than post letters critical of the author that don’t deal with the substance of the book in a charitable way. Anyone who says anything relevant– especially on the subject of origins– is going to have their critics. Sometimes those critics give themselves away by writing letters like Mr. Matheson.

Have you read Mr. Meyer’s book yet?

Blessings,

Frank

There’s an interesting ‘open letter to Stephen Meyer’ here from the developmental cell biologist, and Christian, Steve Matheson:

Google: “open letter to Stephen Meyer”

His blog also goes through a few chapters of Signature in the Cell.

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com.....meyer.html

His blog also goes through a few chapters of Signature in the Cell.

p.s. If you saw the inhabitants of our church you would know better than to think you could “offend/annoy/irritate/aggravate” any of us. And we are, by the way, the original “one-God Apostolic, tongue-talking, holy-roller, born-again, Heaven-bound believer(s) in the liberating power of Jesus’ name”. By the way, that is. Come see us some time, Ya hear?
(and don’t leave the bass at home)

I never thought I’d ever hear myself say this, but….this is one of those times when shameless self-promotion just isn’t really a good idea. My band work is where I funnel a lot of my daily frustration (and the recording quality is *abysmal*, at that). Also I’m a terrible singer. About the only song I’ve *ever* recorded (that I can think of) that wouldn’t offend/annoy/irritate/aggravate a deeply-religious person would be the cover of “Goodnight, Good Guy,” by Collective Soul, from our 2009 Christmas/Holiday EP, which would probably have the exact opposite effect. Everything else is pretty much “horribly offensive”~

…

….but, should you feel absolutely *compelled* to find my original myspace account, google “myspace the tim tations” and hit the first result….but I’m warning you now that you guys aren’t exactly my target audience (no offense, just stating fact here)….

(see, I couldn’t resist the shameless self-promotion after all….)

And now I am going to disappear for a day or so to go handle the aftermath of the holiday occurrences and whatnot. Ciao~

So yeah. Happy Solstice and whatnot to all! I’d post a link to our Holiday EP here for novelty purposes, but something tells me it wouldn’t quite go over well with this audience

May God bless everyone!

It’s worse than that - if you are starting from a world view that considers which scenario is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than another, then you’ve already got the basis for building a system of morals.

You can’t say ‘Without God, you’ve got no objective morality, which then leads to objectively bad situations’. If you can explain why the situation is bad, then you can explain the action which leads to that situation is also bad. Either both objective morals AND objectively good situations exists, or neither do.

That’s kind of what I was saying; only much, much later on in the chain do those basic chemical reactions become complex enough to even begin to resemble true “survival instinct.”

Hmm, I never noticed this before, but you’re dead on here. Thanks for pointing that out. We saw this before with the attempts to destroy any non-God basis for morality. The problem was that when you’ve got to that level of asking ‘why’ so many times in a row, there’s no reason to stop when simply told that ‘God = morality’. You can just keep on asking ‘why’ after that.

Yah. In the case of morality, the only criteria is personal satisfaction (that’s the only way one can justify the inexplicable cease of questioning once we arrive at god), which is then masqueraded as “objective truth” with no explanation. I never understood that before, but combined with Mark’s Magic Jesus Telepathy theory that god directly instills knowledge into our brains, I think I’m finally starting to figure out how people think about “objective morality.”

But also, notice how there was very little mention of — or defense of — the idea of objective morality? It starts out like that, but very quickly degenerates into attacks on “subjective” morality and never looks back. How many times are Hitler and Stalin brought up as scare tactics against a “non-Christian worldview” or paraded as the “natural, logical conclusion” to an “atheist paradigm?” Once we get to that point, the question ceases to be, “does objective morality exist?” and instead becomes the assertion that “objective morality has to exist, because that would be bad if it didn’t.” With no regard for the fact that whether something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ has no effect on whether or not it exists.

And now, a list of words:

God
Christian
Evangelical
Atheist
Christmas
Church
Religion
Science
Lab
Faith
Homosexual
Heterosexual
Big Bang
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Theory

2. Mark, put up or shut up with your ‘trillions to one’ math - where are you getting that figure from?

3. I’ve not seen any atheist here (or anywhere else actually) saying ‘There is no God, so and so phenomena was produced by secular means’. I don’t know whether there is a God or not. I don’t know whether God produced the first life or not. You asked us how it could happen WITHOUT God, we’ve explained it. In the same way, I can explain what makes the sun rise each morning without God - if you still want to believe God is involved, knock yourself out.

My objection is not with people believing in God, it’s with the claim that God is the only explanation for any given thing. Such claims always rest on arguments from incredulity or ignorance. YOU don’t understand it, so you assume no-one else does, or you willfully misunderstand any explanation.

4. “instead of building on a point of its own, like a rational argument would, this kind of argument focuses on deconstructing everything else besides its own point (which is surprisingly small and defenseless) until nothing means anything except for god.”

Hmm, I never noticed this before, but you’re dead on here. Thanks for pointing that out. We saw this before with the attempts to destroy any non-God basis for morality. The problem was that when you’ve got to that level of asking ‘why’ so many times in a row, there’s no reason to stop when simply told that ‘God = morality’. You can just keep on asking ‘why’ after that.

No, not at all….perhaps I was unclear again. When I say “valuing itself is necessary for survival,” I am not saying that self-value is necessary to exist. Obviously that is not true, or else we wouldn’t have suicidal people today. However, what is the common link between all suicidal people?

…they die. They do not survive. They do not pass on their traits (unless they breed first, which is not unheard of….again, hence the presence of suicidal people even today). If a creature is to successfully reproduce and pass on traits without self-value, then that could be chalked up to coincidence, because there is no driving force (self-preservation) motivating the organism to do so.

So, quick recap: Self-value is not necessary for life to exist. Self-value is necessary for life to continue to exist for a long period of time, although a small degree of random chance does occasionally allow for a non-self-valuing organism to reproduce and pass on traits (such as a suicidally-inclined person who marries, has children and then later commits suicide).

You keep saying that Christians arbitrarily assign spirituality to man.

I don’t believe I ever said anyone “arbitrarily assigns spirituality” to anything or anyone. I only asked you to provide a rough explanation/estimate of what a spirit does.

On another note….are you sure you’re not a spambot? I had a similar experience to this one day with an AIM spambot. I asked if it was a bot and it said, “I’m not a bot.” So later I mentioned how I thought bots sucked. The bot replied, “I’m not a bot.” I tried some experiments and I soon figured out that it was coded to reply to *any* usage of the word “bot” with the phrase, “I’m not a bot.”

How that relates to this is, it’s as though you’re reading my posts, skimming for certain keywords, and replying to those keywords regardless of whether or not they were important to the point I was making. So I’m going to do a little hidden test in my next post (assuming you reply to this one) to make entirely sure you’re not a spambot, k?

You do the same when asserting that matter, by way of itself, can reform into a kind of matter that is sentient and self preservational.

I haven’t said much at all about matter reforming into sentient, self-preservational life “by way of itself” or by any other means. The early life as I’ve described it could hardly be called “sentient” or “self-preservational,” nor could it (or any other matter) precede itself in the manner necessary to form itself “by way of itself.” So I’m not sure what you’re referring to, there.

This doesn’t mean anything….//

Can’t find where I said that. Can you direct ?

…

Copycat~

Built into the theory, which you state, is the assumption that life, necessarily, has a “direction”. That direction is “pro” itself. Why ? Matter is not “pro” anything. It merely exists. If “life” is but matter in another state of “matterness”, how does it possess (have an innate “tendency” to “do” X) any qualities NOT associated w/ itself in its “non-life” form ?

You keep saying that Christians arbitrarily assign spirituality to man.
You do the same when asserting that matter, by way of itself, can reform into a kind of matter that is sentient and self preservational.
That is fine -but you must first explain how that is possible when you say yourself that all reality is subjective. Unless you are saying that scientific conclusions can exist independent of mans’ -undeniable- reality as a subjective being.

Tim: I just know.
Mark: So you believe that you have been somehow magically “sent” this information? You didn’t achieve it by learning it, you just somehow magically “knew” it? If that’s all you have to go on, then honestly — knowing in advance that I did not possess this Magical explanation for how matter had a built in mechanism to continue existing in its 100% new transformation into life, how exactly did you plan to persuade me to believe that you have it, if you cannot demonstrate it to me?

This doesn’t mean anything….

There is no material reason for life to exist.

What is a “material reason?”

Or do you mean to say, the environment which could have produced the earliest life-forms could not have existed? In which case you are incorrect. This has been resolved through labwork, which, nothing personal, but….I have good reason to trust millions upon millions of times more than your Magic Jesus Telepathy.

“Well, it HAD to have certain characteristics or else it would not continue to exist.” presupposes that its existence is “necessary”.

That’s not what I meant by “had” to have certain characteristics — sorry, I figured my terminology was obvious. When I say, “has to have certain characteristics,” I am not saying, “there is an objective law that says it has to have these characteristics because life is necessary.” That’s not even close to what I am saying. I am saying, IF life is going to form for *any* reason — in this case, for a biological “reason,” in that the early earth’s environment was probably very suited to the formation of the earliest life, be that because of random coincidence or because of simple persistent reaction on the part of nature — then it would require those traits.

I do not *ever* argue from “objective necessity.” When I say “necessity,” you can safely assume that there is always a qualifier for that necessity — in this case, it’s “necessary” IF life is going to exist. If life would not have developed, then of course there would be no “objective need” for anything to have those traits, or for life to even begin to exist at all. I was merely saying that IF life were to exist, it would require those traits. If not, it wouldn’t.

why would something that is merely material substance, in a new form, suddenly MANUFACTURE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH a set of dynamics that were completely unnecessary and non-existent

I’ve already answered this. Nothing was “manufactured out of whole cloth;” if instinct came about naturally, then it came about simply, in small, seemingly unrelated parts — micro-micro-microscopic genetic fragments, so to speak — not as a singular, well-defined whole. These tiny, tiny parts would then pass through many generations and eventually cohabit with other similar traits, forming the first simple genetic instincts. This is a very easy explanation for why humans have useless functions in their DNA, or useless body parts (like the appendix) — they could be parts that either had a past use but are now being phased out, or they could be useless “traits” (or a combination thereof) that, for some reason or another, were carried on with the dominant “life-ensuring” traits because they had no apparent negative effect on that organism’s survival.

Keep in mind….*very simple* life COULD occur in nature, quite easily, as the early-earth experiments prove. In fact, it quite possibly happened frequently. So as far as that goes, the “ultimate starting point” is pretty much a foregone conclusion — there very likely WOULD be “simple” life, although most of it would not survive for the aforementioned reasons. After that, the ones that survive and adapt and cohabit pass on their powerful traits and evolve.

For example, one theory is that the earliest life-form reproduced simply by falling apart (a sort of mitosis similar to what cells and single-celled creatures use). If that were true (again, for example), then it would be very, very easy to explain how early life came about — it started with simple, disconnected traits, reproduced by splitting its body, and acquired other traits from similar organisms by contact or chemical bonding. Those traits form a sort of “trait ball” that snowballs, gathering successful traits and losing unhelpful ones, until it forms a simple organism.

TIM: I don’t have to explain it to you; life came into existence as I understand it. The fact that it is mathematically impossible times infinity to the trillionth power means nothing.

1) I never said “life came into existence blah blah.” I said, “life could have come into existence blah blah.” Big difference between stating a possibility and stating a fact.

So wait….are you asking me that now, or are you saying that I said it? I can’t tell if you’re being genuine or sarcastic.

The REALLY short version, for pilot fish:

Tim: “Life is only material, so admit it!”
Mark: “How do you know that?”
Tim: “I just do!”
Mark: “How, though?”
Tim: “I don’t have to tell you.”
Mark: “But you had to tell me you thought you were right. Don’t you think it’s only fair to tell me why?
Tim: “No.”
Mark: “Very well then, we’ve established a complete and utter stalemate — a statement of belief, that you believe you are right, and a response that this information is meaningless to me unless you can explain how or why.”

TIM: But life exists, and all that exists is matter — therefore, those natural forces “just are”.
MARK: For this to be true, some “thing” had to set those natural forces in motion. Things can’t create themselves, and neither can natural forces.

TIM: I don’t have to explain it to you; life came into existence as I understand it. The fact that it is mathematically impossible times infinity to the trillionth power means nothing. My professor told me, so it’s obviously true.
MARK: Sorry. I thought you believed in the scientific method. In order to come to a theory on anything, you must first start out assuming nothing. If you already state that life has a “nature” -that allows it to exist in the first place- upon its very inception, then you are leaving out the whole theory as to how life could come about at all.

TIM: Well, I “know” life had these tendencies.
MARK: How did you achieve this knowledge? i.e. how did you go from a state of “not knowing” to a state of “knowing?”

MARK: I just know.
TIM: So you believe that you have been somehow magically “sent” this information? You didn’t achieve it by learning it, you just somehow magically “knew” it? If that’s all you have to go on, then honestly — knowing in advance that I did not possess this Magical explanation for how matter had a built in mechanism to continue existing in its 100% new transformation into life, how exactly did you plan to persuade me to believe that you have it, if you cannot demonstrate it to me?

That’s kind of what I was trying to show by arguing with him a little more precisely….once you narrow it down to the basest points, there isn’t really much of a position in Mark’s case — I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, I just mean that, once you clear out the irrelevant side-remarks and get down to the logic of it, there really isn’t much more than an unenforceable, non-demonstrable statement that he believes something and I do not, which was implied by the simple fact that we were arguing. What few points he seems to focus on degenerate quickly under scrutiny. Now I’m sure Mark will feel free to correct me if I’m wrong or unclear about something here, but here are his main arguments as I understand them thus far and my responses to them, as briefly-summarized as possible:

MARK: We can deduce god (a disembodied intelligence)’s existence based on the way we observe intelligence in nature, because intelligence is immaterial.
TIM: A disembodied intelligence goes against the way we observe intelligence in nature; intelligence is always grounded in physical material, never disembodied — i.e. thoughts, feelings and actions are rooted in physical chemical reactions — so there is nothing in nature to imply that it’s even possible for intelligence to exist immaterially. If it proves anything, it proves that god has to be grounded in materialism.

MARK: But intelligence isn’t material — how do you explain the “spirit” inside people?
TIM: I can’t explain what a “soul” could be (or whether it exists) until you tell me what, exactly, it’s supposed to do. It doesn’t control art or feelings or thought, because these things are all present in the brain (which is part of the body, which the soul supposedly ‘transcends’). So what does a soul do?

MARK: I don’t have to explain it to you; it’s a fallacy to assume I can.
TIM: Sorry, I assumed you could explain it because you brought it up in argument form, which is what people usually do when they are ready to defend (i.e. “explain”) a theory or idea. If you can’t defend or explain it, there’s little point in mentioning it in a debate atmosphere.

MARK: Well, I “know” god is real.
TIM: How did you achieve this knowledge? i.e. how did you go from a state of “not knowing” to a state of “knowing?”

MARK: I just know.
TIM: So you believe that you have been somehow magically “sent” this information? You didn’t achieve it by learning it, you just somehow magically “knew” it? If that’s all you have to go on, then honestly — knowing in advance that I did not possess this Magic Jesus Telepathy, how exactly did you plan to persuade me to believe that you have it, if you cannot demonstrate it to me?

The REALLY short version, for tl;dr-ers:

Mark: “God is real, so admit it!”
Tim: “How do you know that?”
Mark: “I just do!”
Tim: “How, though?”
Mark: “I don’t have to tell you.”
Tim: “But you had to tell me you thought you were right. Don’t you think it’s only fair to tell me why?
Mark: “No.”
Tim: “Very well then, we’ve established a complete and utter stalemate — a statement of belief, that you believe you are right, and a response that this information is meaningless to me unless you can explain how or why.”

That’s what’s always fascinated me about evangelical ontological arguments; instead of building on a point of its own, like a rational argument would, this kind of argument focuses on deconstructing everything else besides its own point (which is surprisingly small and defenseless) until nothing means anything except for god. Once you figure out this trick, all of them become surprisingly easy to disprove. In fact, I actually blame this trick for the growth of scientific interest in the last few decades, simply because people are forced to research their own ideas even more because of such inconsistent and irrational criticism; in turn, this leads to stronger arguments against Christianity and theism, while Christianity and theism are still using the same deconstructive tactics. It’s a big part of why I got into biology and philosophy~

Another way of putting it….it’s a lot like saying, “I want to build a building….so I’m going to bulldoze the earth around this spot where I want my building to be until everything else is lower than this spot. Then I’ll have a building that’s taller than everywhere else!” Sure, your “building” is technically taller than the rest of the ones you tore down to make it….but isn’t it a LOT easier to just build a building? If your argument is reasonable, wouldn’t it be easier to just show that, instead of to try and aggressively tear down everyone else’s beliefs (without applying the same level of skepticism to your own) until even your shoddy argument holds up in comparison?

[/soapbox]

I’ve not seen a single instance of Mark saying ‘right, you’ve answered one question, and I understand that now, but I have another question’. Instead, we just see an endless process of him asking question after question, many already answered, or based on fallacies already corrected by you.

So while I enjoy your posts, I fear that if you imagine any kind of resolution is coming, you will be disappointed.

Already answered this:

But as for how such a self-instilled “value” would “exist” in the first place….most likely in the same way that consequence “exists” — in the beginning, it was likely not so much that the creature actively “sought” survival in a direct, conscious manner (because that was not yet possible), but rather because the creatures who lived longest happened to take actions that were most likely to ensure survival. As those creatures survived and established complexity amongst themselves, it could have become patterned behavior, after which a ’survival instinct’ could be formally born at the genetic level.

Can you even posit A GUESS as to why the notion that life, in its very first appearance, would display ANY characteristic not found in the materials it is being “assembled” from ?

These traits *would* be present in the materials they were “assembled” from. DNA is ultimately made up of nonliving matter, after all — things like sugars and proteins, these substances are not “alive” but they produce life when arranged properly and exposed to proper conditions. This has already been resolved through labwork.

How can ANYTHING be “built into” something that has never existed before ?

See my above self-quote; the short version recap would be, “it’s not built into it, it ‘builds’ it into itself over time.”

Now we are to believe that life “attempted” to exist countless times before it finally “succeeded” (an absurd notion because -just like playing a game of chance 1,000 times in a row does not increase the chances of winning any one game-

Well, first off, we’re not “to believe” anything, that’s just one possibility. I never asked you to believe it, but you *did* ask me to explain it, so I did. Second, no, doing something 1000 times doesn’t increase the odds of getting it “right” any one time, but it does increase the overall odds of getting it right ever. A perfect example would be flipping a coin; if you only need to get 1 heads, then 1000 flips will give you substantially better odds than just 1 flip — you go from a 50% chance to a ridiculously probable chance.

all the while presupposing that there is any natural law demanding that life exist in the first place

I don’t believe I ever said that, actually.

Nothing is “a given” in this context.

It is a given that life has to place value in itself in order to survive. This is obvious because if a lifeform does not care about survival, then it will act in ways that disregard its own safety/survival and is much more likely to die.

Along with this totally new form of material existence was created, ALL of the laws of nature concerning life.

When I said “natural leaning,” I meant a tendency that is the natural consequence of its actions — i.e. a creature at that level of simplicity is most likely bound by simple DNA-driven instinct (or something very similar), so it would only have basic “natural” (i.e. “DNA-driven”) tendencies, which it would operate upon. The organisms with more survival-friendly tendencies would survive, reproduce and adapt, thus carrying on the traits that were most likely to ensure survival.

If all existence is material alone, then isn’t ANY change in its form, by definition, evolutionary ?

Already answered this:

the answer would be no, because evolution only concerns itself with the change and adaptation of living organisms, not just matter in general.

If life is material alone then it is, by definition, merely a different form of matter.

“Life” is not a magic spell or telepathy. Life is an unimaginably-complex series of interactions between nonliving particles (DNA and RNA, the so-called “building blocks” of life, are constructed in their most primary states from nonliving particles, such as sugars and proteins. Unless you mean to argue that, somewhere between the act of being nonliving matter and the act of assembling into self-replicating systems, some kind of “spirit” magically entered into the process for no apparent reason, then there is really no basis for the claim that anything is “more than the sum of its parts.”

If this is so, you are saying, it is clear to me, that the only objective meaning known to us is that there is no objective meaning.

That’s a horribly fallacy, actually. A lack of objectivity is not a law in itself; this is probably due to your confusion about exactly what a law is conceptually, and how a law is understood by a human mind.

Does this: “The only “real” truth is, is that there is no real “truth”.” sum up what you believe ?

It’s not that I don’t believe there *is* objective truth. I’m saying that scientific knowledge is the only verifiable knowledge, but it’s not perfect and acknowledges that it is subject to change — something that your kind of knowledge does not allow, even though it is just as uncertain. Your kind of knowledge (magic Jesus telepathy) is not practical or verifiable; anyone could say, “I know it’s true,” and that would be that and we could never explore it. Your brand of knowledge is useless in a practical sense; if we applied Magic Jesus Telepathy in a court of law, for instance, it would be impossible to truly show innocence or convict criminals.

Tim already answered that. I don’t think you’re reading his posts properly.

Tim: “in the beginning, it was likely not so much that the creature actively “sought” survival in a direct, conscious manner (because that was not yet possible), but rather because the creatures who lived longest happened to take actions that were most likely to ensure survival”

The earliest organisms didn’t have ’survival instincts’. A bacteria doesn’t have instincts, nor does it need them. Survival instincts are only relevant when you’re talking about creatures that can think and take actions that do or do not lead to their survival. How would a carrot ‘commit suicide’?. So discussing survival instincts is pointless before you’ve got quite advanced organisms.

So, again, please explain how that can work. I mean, isn’t the “knowledge” that there is “no objective knowledge” “objective knowledge” ?

Does this: “The only “real” truth is, is that there is no real “truth”.” sum up what you believe ?

While awaiting my latest comments’ moderation (too much “yelling” i guess), here’s a quicky:

You said, “But of course, “objective” meaning is contradictory by nature; meaning is, by definition, subjective”

If this is so, you are saying, it is clear to me, that the only objective meaning known to us is that there is no objective meaning.

Please explain how the foregoing can work.

Because if it didn’t, it would not survive.
Why “must it” survive? This statement begs the question.

If anything tried to develop wihout that tendency, then needless to say, it would not survive.

That statement is absolutely, mind bendingly, bend over backwardsly, begging the questionly, argument from absurdityly, incomprehensible(ly). You have enough faith to manufacture, in your computing device, a completely groundless (and WHOLLY contradictory to your own declared tenet that “the whole can NOT amount to more than the sum”) “tendency” that has NO basis in logic. Within the term “survival instinct” is built the presumption that a pattern of survival has been established. But since this is concerning THE FIRST BORN of creation, the survival instinct must materialize out of whole cloth lest there be no more to follow by the precedent established by this mysterious, reasonless, immaterial “urge”. I realize now that you are unable to see the absolute impossibility of your own theory because you believe, and all arguments are founded in that article of faith. So, let us continue, shall we?…

//But keep in mind, such a “want” would probably exist in the form of a programmed tendency or a natural leaning(!?!)// (emph./ exclamations mine)

“Programmed”. “Tendency”. “Natural”. Can you even posit A GUESS as to why the notion that life, in its very first appearance, would display ANY characteristic not found in the materials it is being “assembled” from ? Don’t you get it? You are presupposing that THE FIRST LIFE FORM would feature SEVERAL dynamics that did not exist, did not “need” to exist, and would have no reason to exist unless it is already established that life has a built in survival instinct. How can ANYTHING be “built into” something that has never existed before ?

2) You say that the ones who survive advance the species’ survival, i.e. existence. Built into that theory is the assumption life “wants to” exist.

Because the ones who don’t “want” to survive (assuming any at all even exist), won’t. If a thousand life forms developed, and 999 of them were “suicidal,” then the one would survive and the 999 would eventually die off.

Brilliant. Now we are to believe that life “attempted” to exist countless times before it finally “succeeded” (an absurd notion because -just like playing a game of chance 1,000 times in a row does not increase the chances of winning any one game- you take an astronomically insane proposition and then multiply it by infinity to the elevendy-twelth power (sarc off), all the while presupposing that there is any natural law demanding that life exist in the first place) in THE most dormant state earth has ever been in ? (there was no life -can’t get much more dormant than that) Can you not see how absurd this is ? Before life, there is no “natural” state in which life would presumably exist. There is no “reason” for life to exist other than your own desire to create a scenario to grab a hold of and say, “YES! There IS no God. He’s a fairy tale. Contrary to all probability, I believe that life conceived itself through a series of mathematically impossible “attempts” to exist until it finally did. And then, when that failed an astronomically absurd number of times, it finally “succeeded” and, VOILA!, Eden!”

It’s a given that if life is going to develop, it is going to need to preserve itself.
Nothing is “a given” in this context. Other than your faith in this murky theory. (maybe you should fall back on Plato. life doesn’t exist. we’re merely the imaginings of an intelligent being…)

…a basic programmed tendency or natural leaning.

I really appreciate your constant illustrations of the concept, “begging the question”. I think I finally got it now -thank you : ) Before life existed, there could be no such thing as “natural” as pertains to life. Along with this totally new form of material existence was created, ALL of the laws of nature concerning life. If not, then, life is not only evolving but, the natural state of life -the “rules” by which it exists- is also in constant evolution. Are you starting to get it now?

If all existence is material alone, then isn’t ANY change in its form, by definition, evolutionary ?

Evolution refers to the adaptation and change of living things ….. This is based on the assumption that life already exists, and therefore makes no attempt to explain how life began. So the answer would be no, because evolution only concerns itself with the change and adaptation of living organisms, not just matter in general.

Then the theory, evolution, is flawed at its foundation. Behold: you have stated clearly that any given life form, man included, is no more than the total of its / his material make-up. (wait for it…this is why I said “we are 100% material or we are not”) If life is material alone then it is, by definition, merely a different form of matter. Why would the change of matter from inanimate to animate be designated as something other than “evolution” ? To be consistent, it would not.

Did life keep failing and “trying” again until it “got it right”?

That’s entirely possible.

To that, I can only paraphrase myself and say, “Your faith is strong, young Slytalker. May dis-course de-myth you!“

We don’t actually know that that’s exactly how it happened. That was just one of several possible scenarios, since you asked me to show how it was possible.

0) Man is a machine.

In a sense, yes.

1) Because life can’t exist w/o a survival instinct, a survival instinct came into existence. Of course! It’s so simple, a fool could see it! Why not me ?

Almost; it’s more like, *if* life had at any point tried to develop without a survival instinct, it would not have survived. It’s a foregone conclusion that any life that does not invest value in itself in some way will not survive long. So in order for life to survive long enough to adapt and evolve, there *must* be a survival instinct. So if 1000 forms of life developed, and only 100 of them had a survival-instinct mechanism, then only about 100 would survive (not counting the ones later ferreted out by natural selection).

But as for how such a self-instilled “value” would “exist” in the first place….most likely in the same way that consequence “exists” — in the beginning, it was likely not so much that the creature actively “sought” survival in a direct, conscious manner (because that was not yet possible), but rather because the creatures who lived longest happened to take actions that were most likely to ensure survival. As those creatures survived and established complexity amongst themselves, it could have become patterned behavior, after which a ’survival instinct’ could be formally born at the genetic level.

Okay, so we now know that God didn’t create anything, creation created itself and, in turn, created laws where-by it could sustain itself.

2 things I have learnt: 0) Man is a machine. -1) Because life can’t exist w/o a survival instinct, a survival instinct came into existence. Of course! It’s so simple, a fool could see it! Why not me ?

I shall ponder these two revelations while out mowing today AND get back to you after reading the rest (hopefully) tonight. Thank you!

Because if it didn’t, it would not survive. There is no way life could evolve or exist without a survival instinct. If anything tried to develop wihout that tendency, then needless to say, it would not survive.

But keep in mind, such a “want” would probably exist in the form of a programmed tendency or a natural leaning in the early stages of life (given that early computing devices were probably not close to complex enough to perform emotional responses/reactions or have desires in the sense that we do now). That’s not to say that a single-celled creature is able to “think” to itself, “I ‘want’ something.”

2) You say that the ones who survive advance the species’ survival, i.e. existence. Built into that theory is the assumption life “wants to” exist.

Because the ones who don’t “want” to survive (assuming any at all even exist), won’t. If a thousand life forms developed, and 999 of them were “suicidal,” then the one would survive and the 999 would eventually die off. It’s a given that if life is going to develop, it is going to need to preserve itself.

But keep in mind, it’s just as impossible for an early life form to truly “desire” death as it is for it to truly “desire” life; if such a tendency existed, it would more likely exist in the form of a basic programmed tendency or natural leaning.

If all existence is material alone, then isn’t ANY change in its form, by definition, evolutionary ?

Evolution refers to the adaptation and change of living things (before you go off on that one, let me say that it is very easy to define “living” without resorting to metaphysics). This is based on the assumption that life already exists, and therefore makes no attempt to explain how life began. So the answer would be no, because evolution only concerns itself with the change and adaptation of living organisms, not just matter in general.

Did life keep failing and “trying” again until it “got it right”?

That’s entirely possible.

But natural selection explains why creatures would evolve to ‘want’ to survice. If you’ve got six offspring of a pair of creatures, with random variance among their characteristics, the ones most likely to survive are the ones that have the characteristics that enable them to survice. They will then pass those traits onto THEIR offspring.

Mark, one of the reasons these conversations approach the circular, is that I never see any willingness on the part of creationists to actually learn anything new. You’ll pose a question, and when someone takes the time to answer it, there’s no sign that you now know the answer to the question, or have taken it in.

1 )Were life to occur “naturally”, what “rule” of nature dictates that it would, necessarily, “want” to survive? NS itself implies intent or, at the very least, a singular direction. But before life, there is nothing to suggest that materials compete w/ each other. So, why would life be innately imbued with a “survival instinct” any more than it would a “suicide instinct” when we know it is comprised of material alone ? Non-”survival instinct” material in = non-”survival instinct” “creation”. Not saying it would be suicidal just that it would not be the opposite either, according to my understanding of what you have said thus far, that is. Which would seem to stack the odds even greater against life advancing even if you accept the “miracle” of its “birth”.

Talking about the first life forms here, not critters and predators. Which is my point: CAN you get here from there?

Late, Mark

How is it metaphysical? What about it is not physical? Until you can answer that, then I will operate under the assumption that my explanations have been enough to describe these processes (thought, etc.) as “non-metaphysical.”

Materials produce material things. Thoughts are not material. You say so yourself when insisting that they don’t “exist” in any real way. Read on…

Neither is a cartoon character. But a cartoon character isn’t metaphysical; it’s a collection of physical traits and arrangements — just like a thought.

You just analogized mans’ ideas with a material result of those ideas. It’s a faulty analogy.

Begging the question….

(recap: the question is whether or not ideas are ‘immaterial.’ You assert here that they ARE material, and you conclude that they must be material based on that. This is circular; hence, “begging the question.”)

Sorry, but there is nothing analogous to the human intellect other than its source. And there is nothing analogous to the sources holiness. Ideas do exist. And they are just as real as the One who gave us the ability to have them.

How so?

As I have said all along, the answer is self evident. You flip the conversation.

Even self-evident truths can be demonstrated. So how would you demonstrate this “truth” (aside from asserting it, since we’ve already shown that that doesn’t work).

So, you see?, the query is to you. Not knowing or, more to the point, not believingthat intelligence has any, as yet, grounding in reality how do you “know” anything?

My understanding of “knowledge” is very different from yours, as I’ve said. Scientific knowledge is open to new developments and ALWAYS observes the possibility that what is currently held as “truth” could, even if only theoretically, be proven “false.” It is open to evidence which contradicts current beliefs, and it requires a reasonable person to change his/her beliefs to act in the most reasonable way given the information available. I don’t believe in true “objective knowledge,” as I have said many times here and elsewhere; I only believe that there is “applied knowledge,” which is to say, “things that we say we ‘know’ that are consistent and that are reliable and helpful to us,” such as acknowledging the effect of a speeding vehicle’s impact, or acknowledging the reaction between two explosive chemicals.

Your idea of knowledge seems to be some form of telepathy — you believe you can somehow obtain knowledge without actually acquiring it. This is very odd to me. How can you know something if there exist no means by which to learn it?

If life had no meaning, people would not try to give it meaning nor could they distinguish meaning from non-meaning.

This is a fallacy called “argument from want for [X];” arguing that something exists based on the fact that people want it to exist. When in fact the two are not related; it’s impossible to conclude that something exists solely based on the given that people want it to exist and/or are looking for it.

Besides, we’ve already proven how life can’t have objective meaning — I know you said you don’t believe in logical proofs, but it’s a simple fact that significance cannot exist on its own; it’s a concept born in the mind. Without a mind to perceive it, it does not exist. WITH a mind, it becomes subjective. So there can be no “true meaning” to life. That would contradict the definition of “meaning,” which is “subjective significance.”

Only if it were to have a soul could IT subjectively mangle the meaning of the info it receives.

…what? If a computer performs an error, then that means it has a soul? …I am truly confused, now….

I see man struggling w/ his conscience. That clearly indicates that the sum is greater than the whole of his “parts”.

…how so?

How can there be “philosophical implications (in) a material world” unless man is imbued, by his Creator, with an ability to philosophize in his “computing device” in the first place ?

“How can something exist unless god created it?”

We’ve already been over how computing devices can exist naturally; I don’t have time to repeat myself.

As for philosophy; basically, I imagine that consciousness is what it “feels like” for a computer to process. When you are thinking, that is the sensation of your brain processing information.

How can the concept of metaphysics exist w/o metaphysics? It is not material, by definition, so this conversation serves as proof it exists.

This conversation is an interaction between computing devices, facilitated by third-party software (the PC/internet).

“The phrase “keep in mind”, itself, implies that something greater than physical actions / reactions are occuring within us.”

Well, actually it implies that there is a database where you store information in your mind, and that I am issuing a request for you to temporarily store data in short-term memory for ease of access.

Man is not a computer, nor is he analogous to one, as I illustrated above.

How so?

No, I am saying that strictly material beings do not have ideas.

Clearly they do; you and I have ideas, and we are strictly material (as has been illustrated). You may disagree with this; that’s fine. If you wish to disprove it, all you must do is show what the spirit does. Brain function, thought, emotion, senses, these things are all accounted for by the material body. What is left for the spirit to do?

Amazing. In your “reality”, we are machines. Gotta part ways w/ ya on that one. Maybe we’ll agree on this next point….let us see…

Hey, you asked….

Well, don’t know how to account for that description of how a tv set is made. Other than secular public “ed” that is.

???

In any case, it’s a rough description. I’m no mechanic, but the directions of building a TV set were not the highlight. You can use a different example if you prefer — building a birdhouse instead.

(Sorry. It just amazes how you, so freely, attribute to prehistoric “critters” what you contend exists even in men. Seriously, this whole line of thinking is so beholden to assumptions, leaps and gaps that I can scarcely believe that even you take it seriously.)…

(sigh)….your wordplay is tiring at times. In any case, a recap: I’ve explained that thoughts “exist” in the same sense that a cartoon character exists — they are assemblies of material concepts that come together to form something with a unique function that is different from any of its individual parts. They are not literal things that literally exists — as a cartoon character does not really exist anywhere out there in the universe, although we can still refer to a cartoon character by name and have people understand what we are talking about.

You seem to be making leaps and bounds of assumptions about my beliefs, in stark contrast to anything I’ve actually said….if I may be forward, how much of my postings did you actually read?

“Either we are 100% material beings, or we are not.”

Based on my observations, I contend that we are material beings.

It’s not that we “must” have a spiritual component, it is that we do. Insisting on “proof” of something that is, literally, “in on” the reality of every moment of every day is not a sufficient question. I know we’re separate for good on that one. Just wanted to confirm it.

The crux of the problem: you refuse to defend your point. It’d feel awfully hollow to claim “victory” over a point that is as defenseless as yours, so I suppose I’ll just leave it at that…

No. The key word in that quote is “would”. A material world dictates no meaning and no ideas. You turned it to “should”. Do you see why this is faulty? In a material world, there are no “shoulds”.

It doesn’t matter. In the context I described, “should” or “would” could work; I said “should” in the sense that, based on the fact that there would be no objective standards for such things, it would be reasonable to expect it to work that way (i.e. it “should” work that way).

Secondly….you seem to think that, in a world without objective morals, people wouldn’t even be able to think or have thoughts about morality. That is blatantly false, for reasons I’ve tried to explain….

h you admit to not having enough information to deduce this rationally. Don’t recall admitting that.

You don’t remember where you said you couldn’t deduce god’s existence based on the existence of intelligence in nature?

Mark: Again, as with your immediately preceding statement, you establish a faulty construct -”it stands that there is no way to rationally infer that much”- and then suggest that I must argue from within it.

translation: “You said my argument was illogical and then expected me to defend it. That is faulty” (because Mark cannot defend the statement).

Mark: Built into that statement, it appears to me, is the presumption that man must explain God.

Science is not a tool to help you see what you want to see. Science is a way to make you see what is there.