(2024-04-24, 12:53 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]You know that I completely disagree with the notion of 'proof' when using this argument. A proof is a logical argument that demonstrates that a proposition is true, based entirely on other true propositions and rules of inference.
Well is it just my use of the word proof that you object to? Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a proof in empiracle science, only in maths.
Let's put it this way. Do you doubt that biology starting without the impetus of RM+NS is absurd? I outlined part of what would need to be explained a few pages back, and you seemed to agree with me that this could not just start by chance.
Furthermore, as James Tour is happy to point out:
Most of the biochemical precursors of life are extremely fragile, and just getting them all into one place so that life could be created by accident just piles on the absurdity of this concept (BTW, I'm not totally sure if you are in favour of this idea or not - I rather think you want to disown it, but vaguely hold on to it at the same time).
OK if you accept that chance is not a viable explanation for the origin of life Then it is not unreasonable to accept the obvious conclusion that a mind was involved.
Now, since we are talking about the time before life began on earth, that mind has to be discarnate, does it not?
Quote:But for clarification could you maybe explain if the proposed designer designed the universe or only the life in it?
I am fairly easy, I don't like the idea that the mind in question belonged to Yaweh, and in fact I don't much like the concept of God, because it implies omniscience, and I think infinities are handy in maths but you don't want them in a physical theory (which means I am very dubious about the Big Bang and black holes in general).
The discarnate entity could be plural. That seems rather natural when you think of predator/prey arms races in nature.
I think the designer can clearly think problems through to an impressive depth, but when you think of the Cambrian Explosion, he/she/them probably felt the need to do an experiment now and again to test a range of possibilities and then choose the best few.
I'd quess some more hints about the designer(s) could be found from NDE stories in which he figures.
As to whether he created the whole universe or just life on earth - who knows?
I sense that you love physics a bit too much, and you have always thought that the origin of life was a slam dunk, but you are terrified to go over to my view. I only realised that RM+RS was nonsense from a scientifically very well read guy called "Lone Shaman" on Skeptiko. It is a shock to begin with
David