Sunday, January 29, 2023

Paulogia Not Defeating Theist Arguments

Does God Exist? 4 New Arguments (@PragerU response)
Paulogia, 18 Jan. 2023

5:07 So, if scientists don't use their words in certain ways that might suggest otherwise they are wrong, making that suggestion is:
  • misunderstanding at the best
  • deliberate misrepresentation at the worst?

Is "Science" above critique, and especially above critique from outsiders? I mean science in the sense that would believe or "accept" stellar evolution whatever name you would give that concept ....

5:46 I always wondered where some Creationists (including Kent Hovind) got the idea according to Big Bang cosmology "everything came from nothing" ...

I usually don't use that as an argument.

But you mentioned Quantum Vaccum. Kraus and Carrier love the idea that "everything came from nothing" ... so, I can't dismiss it as a complete strawman either.

7:38 It doesn't, his view of the binary flip obviously refers to up to H, He, Li. Or even just up to H.

[Meaning Frank Pastore by matter means atoms. That's a fairly usual definition among chemists.]

8:18 Reducing both life and mind to chemical processes, as you explicitly do, undercuts any claims of any mind or any number of minds to know anything, especially beyond immediate surroundings necessary for survival and social interaction - which the state of things billions or millions of years ago obviously don't enter into.

mundanely gradual also doesn't make much sense.

1) There cannot be an improvement of reactions as long as they don't compete by procreating some way or other;
2) and there also cannot be an immediate step from non-life to self-replicating life, because the differences to bridge are too many.


10:43 The Miller-Urey experiment certainly enters into my (and Frank Pastore's and CMI's and AiG's and ... nostalgia ... Edgar Andrews') debunking of the possibility of abiogenesis.

Check out with CMI for chirility problem. Information problem.

Check out with Edgar Andrews for triple or quadruple initial need:

  • amino-acids
  • information (DNA / RNA type code)
  • membrane
  • self replication

along with the speed that prohibits delay : same conditions that create amino acids also tend to dissolve them.

I think you find a similar but longer list on CMI.

Check out with an ice-cream and mayo addict like me that membranes tend to be phospholipids (lecitine is one of them!) and phospholipids are not a product of Miller-Urey conditions.

11:00 "There is no reason to suspect the process took place within a single human lifetime"

Or, in that case, even at all. Why? Because the Miller Urey products won't stay around for millions or billions of years. They will disintegrate very quickly, indeed within hours, unless taken away from the conditions that produced them. Both the electric discharges and the base chemicals are very good at ripping amino-acids of the Miller-Urey standard apart. Especially when they have no phosopholipid membrane to protect them.

This makes abiogenesis one thing radically different from evolution by speciation.

Hemiechinus auritus and Atelerix algirus didn't get different in one human generation. This is sth Creationists and Evolutionists agree on. It took very many different steps for each to come into existence from the common ancestor. BUT - each is fully functional, the common ancestor was fully functional, the stages between common ancestor and Atelerix auritus and the stages between common ancestor and Hemiechinus auritus were also fully functional.

Miller-Urey chemicals floating in Miller-Urey conditions are not that. They resolve back into the original ingredients very quickly, thereby foreclosing the very possibility of ever becoming fully functional in a biological way.

12:21 I dont accept that that earth orbits the sun either.

No evidence for it, and with God and angels, no need for it.

12:28 Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift are very adequate for coming from a common ancestor that was also a hedgehog to a Hemiechinus auritus or a Atelerix algirus.

They are not adequate to explain:

  • new cell types
  • new genes
  • new chromosome pairs (with both older fewer and younger more numerous pairs being diploid).

12:40 Perhaps he meant "man and beasts" or "Menschen und Tiere" ... no, having reason and lacking reason are not the same, so, "animal" is diversified into "animal rationale" (man) and "animal irrationale" (beast) by that exact difference.

13:26 Reason vs not having reason is not about biodiversity only.

It's about, if I exist with a beginning in time, and if I have reason, where did my reason come from?

I predict chat bots are soon going to show their incapacity to advance into actual consciousness or understanding, which will jar with the idea that reason is a by-product of brains "wired a certain way" not radically different from AI.

And whatever the reason be for passing the mirror test in some non-humans, it is not reason as it has no expression like unto language.

15:52 If you don't accept that humans have free will, you don't accept that human have sufficient freedom to circumspect a question either.

And in that case, you cannot accept that humans can solve questions either, including the ones you presume solved in this video and including the ones involved in denying free will (or human exceptionalism).

Your position becomes self refuting.

16:12 "if each step in the process [of deliberation] can be broken down into ..."

Exact same thing for the deliberations behind such breaking down, and therefore of your own position. Which doesn't contradict it, but contradicts it being rationally known.

16:33 So far it sounds as if he isn't even going to bring up language ...

16:47 "wetness is an emergent property of water"

Not entirely. Wetness means molecules easily glide past each other. But each water molecule is built so that it easily glides past other molecules, especially water molecules.

By contrast, "consciousness" as "emergement property of brains" is a property which cannot be traced to smaller parts having aspects of it.

16:59 The damage and affect argument bypasses that this is not just true of two things where one emerges from the other, but also of things where two different things influence each other (motor movement and gear are an example I have seen used on CMI).

17:30 Concepts are uniquely exclusive to man.

Empathy, vanity and other things involving social interaction obviously exist in the animal kingdom outside man, because we are not the only social being.

But we are the only being producing concepts of which we can talk in absence of physical presence of the conceptualised things.

18:08 A full spectrum of complexity does not mean you can get from less complex to more or especially from zero to least complex.

The one thing Darwin didn't even reflect on in the reflection on the eye is how there is a light sensitive spot in the first place.

The retina of cichlid fish has 10 genes working in interchange with each other during fetal development to form cones and taps and whatever else is needed on a retina. Two of the genes have a mutation each, and that is why cichlids in certain caves in Mexico are blind.

18:53 By now it is obvious, Frank Pastore and you are not bringing up human language and its uniqueness.

20:17 That Northern Irish Protestant is wrong.

"once we discover how lightning works, the god disappears"

Well, no. You cannot check that the only reason why a lightning strikes precisely when the cloud is here and not five minutes later when it is there is pure physical necessity.

There obviously is a point of electric tension at which the cloud can no longer hold back a lightning. There also is a lack of it where it has no lightning potential even. But for the physical necessity to be all there is to lightning is to imagine there is a binary switch between the two. If you have a bladder, you know there is a similar tension in some ways that can usually be held back until you get to a toilet, and even get pushed on if you get to a toilet before it's really, really, really urgent.

No man is doing that to any cloud and lightning, but some demons very well might be doing so.

So, the god doesn't disappear when Benjamin Franklin comes around - he just gets classified as a demon when the Christian missionary gets around.

But for at least part of the matters in this video and what it's answering, you are very far from a "Benjamin Franklin or James Clerk Maxwell understanding of the lightning" ... so the gap isn't in your knowledge, but in the naturalistic explanation.

No comments: