Logic dictates that there is a God!

[mightyal]

I thought I had an original take on this using Occam's razor, but I wikied it and it's been done before.

Occam's razor is a logical principle that is a basic tool of the scientific method. It states that when chosing between hypotheses, the one with fewer assumptions is preferred.

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, unbelief should be preferred.

There is much controversy over whether such compelling reasons exist or not. The history of theistic thought is rife with attempts at formulating them: the cosmological argument, for example, states that the universe must be the result of a "first cause" and that that first cause must be God. Similarly, the teleological argument credits the appearance of design and order in the universe to supernatural intelligence. Many people believe in miracles or have what they call religious experiences, and some theists consider creationism to be more believable than naturalistic explanations for the diversity and history of life on earth.[1]

The majority of the scientific community maintains that these arguments fail to necessitate the inclusion of the God hypothesis in the world model, instead preferring explanations that deal with the same phenomena within the confines of existing scientific models. The necessity of a God in the teleological argument is challenged by the effects of emergence, leading to the creation-evolution controversy; likewise, religious experiences have naturalistic explanations in the psychology of religion. Other theistic arguments, such as the argument from miracles, are sometimes pejoratively said to be arguing for a mere God of the gaps. Whether or not God actually works miracles, any explanation that "God did it" must fit the facts and make accurate predictions better than more parsimonious guesses like "something did it", or else Occam's razor still cuts God out.

[jay_a2j]

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Doing a bit more research on the same site, I found the above. Pasteur may have stated "Life does not come from non-life" but he never intended that to mean life could never arise from non-life!

Where was that? "come or "arise" give me a break, its the same thing.

[heavycola]

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Doing a bit more research on the same site, I found the above. Pasteur may have stated "Life does not come from non-life" but he never intended that to mean life could never arise from non-life!

Where was that? "come or "arise" give me a break, its the same thing.

i think the crux there was in the phrase "he never intended".

This might sound twatty, but Jay if you are arguing from a scientific POV then you are taking the words of either your old science teacher, or the refutation by Pasteur et al of spontaneous generation, as a counterargument to what millions of scientists take for granted.
And yes, just because millions of people take it for granted doesn;t make it right. Take christianity for instance - if my argument against it was that some teacher told me it might not be true, or merely that Bertrand Russell dismissed it and he was very clever, you would laugh me out of here.

[Stopper]

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Doing a bit more research on the same site, I found the above. Pasteur may have stated "Life does not come from non-life" but he never intended that to mean life could never arise from non-life!

Where was that? "come or "arise" give me a break, its the same thing.

On exactly the same site,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiopro ... ation.html

As to "come" or "arise", heavycola pointed out what I saying there already.

[cowshrptrn]

What pasteur's words mean now, are that it is highly highly improbable for life to form from non-life, not common enough for maggots to sprout from a piece of meat.

A sicentist (i forgot the name and experiment, i came across it a few yeras ago) was able to synthesize primitive organic compounds by taking a chamber with gases, and compounds in it that would have likely been around when the earth first began and ran electrical pulses through it. This was in a few days, at most, of this situation. During storms over the billions of years that it took for bacteria to evolve it is very possible that these comounds were inadvertantly synthesized. These gave rise to very very primitive life forms, which later evolved and came to be the more complex forms of life we see today.

[jay_a2j]

What pasteur's words mean now, are that it is highly highly improbable for life to form from non-life, not common enough for maggots to sprout from a piece of meat.

A sicentist (i forgot the name and experiment, i came across it a few yeras ago) was able to synthesize primitive organic compounds by taking a chamber with gases, and compounds in it that would have likely been around when the earth first began and ran electrical pulses through it. This was in a few days, at most, of this situation. During storms over the billions of years that it took for bacteria to evolve it is very possible that these comounds were inadvertantly synthesized. These gave rise to very very primitive life forms, which later evolved and came to be the more complex forms of life we see today.

You are a man of great faith. You'd have to be to buy into that.

[heavycola]

What pasteur's words mean now, are that it is highly highly improbable for life to form from non-life, not common enough for maggots to sprout from a piece of meat.

A sicentist (i forgot the name and experiment, i came across it a few yeras ago) was able to synthesize primitive organic compounds by taking a chamber with gases, and compounds in it that would have likely been around when the earth first began and ran electrical pulses through it. This was in a few days, at most, of this situation. During storms over the billions of years that it took for bacteria to evolve it is very possible that these comounds were inadvertantly synthesized. These gave rise to very very primitive life forms, which later evolved and came to be the more complex forms of life we see today.

You are a man of great faith. You'd have to be to buy into that.

My ironymeter just exploded

jay you believe the exorcist is a documentary, that the suburbs are crawling with witches and that despite the odds you know for sure that the universe is empty of life apart from here (apart from the spiritchal dementia obviously)

AND YET you roll your eyes at this dude for listening to a scientist. You are mad. It's like arguing with an autistic child.

[jay_a2j]

What pasteur's words mean now, are that it is highly highly improbable for life to form from non-life, not common enough for maggots to sprout from a piece of meat.

A sicentist (i forgot the name and experiment, i came across it a few yeras ago) was able to synthesize primitive organic compounds by taking a chamber with gases, and compounds in it that would have likely been around when the earth first began and ran electrical pulses through it. This was in a few days, at most, of this situation. During storms over the billions of years that it took for bacteria to evolve it is very possible that these comounds were inadvertantly synthesized. These gave rise to very very primitive life forms, which later evolved and came to be the more complex forms of life we see today.

You are a man of great faith. You'd have to be to buy into that.

My ironymeter just exploded

jay you believe the exorcist is a documentary, that the suburbs are crawling with witches and that despite the odds you know for sure that the universe is empty of life apart from here (apart from the spiritchal dementia obviously)

AND YET you roll your eyes at this dude for listening to a scientist. You are mad. It's like arguing with an autistic child.

Here we go! Putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said the Exorcist was a "documentary". I said it was based on a TRUE story...and IT WAS! "spiritchal"? what is that? Did you MEAN spiritual? Oh, don't tell me the spelling nazi is uneducated himself!

[2dimes]

"spiritchal"? what is that?

That was mockery.

[mightyal]

"spiritchal"? what is that?

That was mockery.

It took mockery to another demention.

[jay_a2j]

"spiritchal"? what is that?

That was mockery.

yeah right. If it was HE would have put it in quotes. He just can't spell. Off with his head!

[vtmarik]

"spiritchal"? what is that?

That was mockery.

yeah right. If it was HE would have put it in quotes. He just can't spell. Off with his head!

It's the colloquial pronunciation that has been transliterated into text. He's making fun of your insistance that dimension is spelled "demention."

But then again, I'm not surprised that you missed that.

[Aradhus]

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

I think you'll find science doesn't say anything of the sort.

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

Where did it come from?

The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).

There must be a God.

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).

Silly child. You observe the seeming laws of our universe without understanding that they are laws of our universe alone. They exist within our universe, that doesn't mean they exist before it. The watch is proof of a watchmaker, it is not proof of time.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well, my friend, we've come a long way since post one. 125 pages, to be precise.

Jay was citing Pasteur's law, if memory serves me, but we've been over it several times, so if you've the mind about you to run a search of "pasteur" on this thread, you'd probably be able to see where we are in the debate now.

In any event, time for bed, talk to you all tomorrow.

[Jolly Roger]

Well, my friend, we've come a long way since post one. 125 pages, to be precise.

Jay was citing Pasteur's law, if memory serves me, but we've been over it several times, so if you've the mind about you to run a search of "pasteur" on this thread, you'd probably be able to see where we are in the debate now. :)

In any event, time for bed, talk to you all tomorrow. :D

It's interesting that you refer to it as Pasteur's "law". As I understand it (based on seconds of internet research), Pasteur postulated that life cannot come from non-life after observing what happened to normal air in an otherwise sterile environment, failing to take into account the mindboggling length of time it may have taken for life to develop spontaneously as well as the full spectrum of elements, chemical compounds and injections of energy which might have been available at the time. Scientists at least have the decency to refer to evolution and the big bang as theories (although they do not always treat them as such).

[mightyal]

theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

When Scientists use the word theory they mean definition 1 and not 2.

[Stopper]

Well, my friend, we've come a long way since post one. 125 pages, to be precise.

Jay was citing Pasteur's law, if memory serves me, but we've been over it several times, so if you've the mind about you to run a search of "pasteur" on this thread, you'd probably be able to see where we are in the debate now.

In any event, time for bed, talk to you all tomorrow.

It's interesting that you refer to it as Pasteur's "law". As I understand it (based on seconds of internet research), Pasteur postulated that life cannot come from non-life after observing what happened to normal air in an otherwise sterile environment, failing to take into account the mindboggling length of time it may have taken for life to develop spontaneously as well as the full spectrum of elements, chemical compounds and injections of energy which might have been available at the time. Scientists at least have the decency to refer to evolution and the big bang as theories (although they do not always treat them as such).

I've already tried to say this, but I feel like pointing out again that Pasteur's experiment didn't have anything to do with the beginning of life, etc. He was simply disproving something that was commonly believed at the time, ie that complex life forms currently spontaneously generate.

It has more to do with concept of keeping things sterile, for instance, say when you're conducting an operation. Doctors at the time didn't wash their hands when sawing legs off etc - because they thought it was pointless - they thought if you cleaned your hands, germs would just spontaneously regenerate on your hands anyway.

Nothing to do with the beginnings of life on Earth!

[OnlyAmbrose]

Relax guys, I haven't set foot in the debate regarding Pasteur's law (or whatever it is) because I'm not sure I agree with the grounds jay is trying to prove his point on. If someone could scientifically prove that the combination of the amino acids to form life is impossible, then I think he'd be able to argue his point along this line of thought, but I don't think anything like that has been proven.

[jay_a2j]

It lives. (bump from page 3)

[vtmarik]

Yes, it lives, which allows me to post this.



Now I won't feel guilty, thanks Jay.

[jay_a2j]

Challenge

Blah, blah, blah.... no one responded to me.... blah, blah, blah

So, you want a debate were you can dictate was is "submittable in to evidence"? LOL...ya, ok.

[vtmarik]

So, you want a debate were you can dictate was is "submittable in to evidence"? LOL...ya, ok.

Well, evidence is something that can be seen/felt/touched/experienced by everyone, not just believers. You see, not all people have been healed or received information from the Divine like you or I.

Non-believers want evidence that would stand up in court, basically. Testimonials, 2000 year old books, long-standing traditions aren't evidence according to judicial and scientific standards. I don't care if you have 1000 or 100,000,000 people who echo your 'evidence,' it's still inadmissible in court.

[morph]

So, you want a debate were you can dictate was is "submittable in to evidence"? LOL...ya, ok.

Well, evidence is something that can be seen/felt/touched/experienced by everyone, not just believers. You see, not all people have been healed or received information from the Divine like you or I.

Non-believers want evidence that would stand up in court, basically. Testimonials, 2000 year old books, long-standing traditions aren't evidence according to judicial and scientific standards. I don't care if you have 1000 or 100,000,000 people who echo your 'evidence,' it's still inadmissible in court.

was it jay that said this... or was it someone else that told me.... but anyways, someone said to me that the bible is the word of god, and as so cannot be corrupted, cannot be a lie, or god will smite the person or something to that effect, question, if this was true, then why hasnt the other religions, that have split off from the bible, making their own, out of translations of it... been killed?

[vtmarik]

was it jay that said this... or was it someone else that told me.... but anyways, someone said to me that the bible is the word of god, and as so cannot be corrupted, cannot be a lie, or god will smite the person or something to that effect, question, if this was true, then why hasnt the other religions, that have split off from the bible, making their own, out of translations of it... been killed?

Because it's a dense tome of fables and symbolism.

I'm proclaiming it's entire uselessness, and I have yet to be smote. What does that say hmmm? With your precious theology.

[jay_a2j]

It doesn't say you will be "smote". If you must quote the Bible in an attempt to disprove it at least be accurate.