Make Fist a believer!!! heh

[Fist and Faith]

An example: Let's say that you think God made nucleotides, or that God assembled them. Would you try to find out if there was a way the could have assembled without the aid of God? As a scientist you should.

I know I'm the one who started this thread, and I'm asking scientists to look for those very answers to help me in my quest, so this is sort of a crazy thing to say. But do scientists need to be bothering with that? With my whole topic? Isn't there anything to do that's more beneficial? These questions literally cannot be answered with absolute certainty. Can they? We can't go back to primordial earth and see what happened. Nor can we recreate primordial earth, because there's a margin of error, maybe a big margin of error, in our theories about what the conditions were back then. And any theory we come up with about what happened back then is only provable in the sense that it may or may not be proven that it couldn't have happened that way, never that it did happen that way.

Unless I'm wrong about any of that, why not work in other fields? Yes, research in this field may end up stumbling upon something that cures cancer, but that kind of outside chance doesn't seem like good reason to me.

Of course, I know the answer is that someone who is truly interested in origin of life stuff will work at it with more dedication and enthusiasm than s/he would another field. You can't force someone to put their all into something they aren't interested in. They'll likely be sloppy, give up too soon, etc. Maybe I'm just thinking my tax dollars shouldn't pay for origin of life studies. (LOL!! Back to the Tank!! )

Anyway, since I did start this thread, let's get back to it. Again:

An example: Let's say that you think God made nucleotides, or that God assembled them. Would you try to find out if there was a way the could have assembled without the aid of God? As a scientist you should.

I think this goes along with another thing you said:

As for the Creation thing (Xar) am I correct in assuming, that the more we explain, the further back you would move the point of divine influence? If this is so, would you actively try to push this border yourself without fear of loosing faith? Any scientist should be able to answer yes to that question.

IMO, everybody should push back the border. Not to try and prove or disprove any creator's existence, but because it's fun, and it's the pursuit of knowledge, and it's what human beings do. No knowledge of anything could disprove God's existence. If someone believes, because of personal experience or feeling, then it would just be a matter of "Oh. So God didn't start it here, I guess he started it there." Which shouldn't interfere with trying to see the scientific steps between here and there. There's good reason to believe God didn't simply assemble RNA? There's clay/mineral templates that seem to do it? No problem. Maybe God made the templates. Believer or non-believer should want to see if there's a scientific explanation for the formation of the templates.

[Creator]

I am waaayyyy out of my depth here! However, I remember reading a popular science book on quantum realities. It was interesting to me that one quantum theory postulates that nothing can exist unless it is observed.

Perhaps it is the mind of God observing everything that keeps reality working.

[Fist and Faith]

Well, if that's the Creator's opinion, how could I doubt it?

[danlo]

Perhaps it is the mind of God observing everything that keeps reality working.

in other words: if God's Mind-Eye gets bored it's all over?

[Prebe]

No knowledge of anything could disprove God's existence. If someone believes, because of personal experience or feeling, then it would just be a matter of "Oh. So God didn't start it here, I guess he started it there.

True, but if you believe BECAUSE, or partly because the strinking complexity of life must have been Created, and not have evolved, then researching the origin of this complexity would be pulling the rug out from under you own belief.

I personally dislike the notion of: "God created this." Later we find a natural explanation. Conclusion: "God did not create this." This repeats itself untill we (Ultimately perhaps) find out that God didn't create didely. Would one still believe? And is it necessary for a believer in God to believe that He (physically) created anything at all? If the answer to that question is yes, isn't any kind of research into the origin of anything herresy? As a non believer, at least, I would think that disrespectfull to God: "Hey! let's see if the old guy (in whom we strongly believe) created this after all!". If you ask that question, you do it because you believe he did not. Because a falsification of ay scientific hypothesis you may have does not prove the existence of a higher power.

I know I'm the one who started this thread, and I'm asking scientists to look for those very answers to help me in my quest, so this is sort of a crazy thing to say. But do scientists need to be bothering with that? With my whole topic? Isn't there anything to do that's more beneficial?

Yes there might be, but basic research should not be done just for spinn-offs. This basic research should be done because of understandable curiousity and a vivid interest in how the fundamental units of life originated

These questions literally cannot be answered with absolute certainty. Can they?

Not many questions can. Sure that's not a reason to stop trying? Unless of course you feel that the subject at hand infringes on the territory of a presupposed Creator.

Maybe I'm just thinking my tax dollars shouldn't pay for origin of life studies.

So you only want your tax dollars to be used for applied research? two problems with that attitude:
1: Sounds like you think that all significant basic science, that can ever become the foundation of applied research that YOU can benefit from, has been done.
2: If you only want to pay for applied research, how about those types that apply to areas you don't like?

Yes, research in this field may end up stumbling upon something that cures cancer, but that kind of outside chance doesn't seem like good reason to me.

That's not so far fetched as you might think

[Creator]

Perhaps it is the mind of God observing everything that keeps reality working.

in other words: if God's Mind-Eye gets bored it's all over?

YUP!! So keep the interesting prayers coming!!

[Fist and Faith]

Well, we're off the purpose of my thread, but I suppose that's at least as much my fault as anybody's.

I personally dislike the notion of: "God created this." Later we find a natural explanation. Conclusion: "God did not create this." This repeats itself untill we (Ultimately perhaps) find out that God didn't create didely. Would one still believe?

I'm sure many would still believe, because, unless the idea I've been getting at is wrong, there's no possibility of proving that God didn't create anything. Now, I know what I'm about to say is not science, more like popular opinion, but, aside from popular opinion often being what we're talking about where religious belief is concerned, there are differences in the various things that cannot be "proven."

Take gravity. Is there a Law of gravity that has been proven? Or is it just theory that has not been disproven, despite many years of observation and testing? I even heard one person say that gravity is not considered a Law because, just because it always has done a certain thing in a certain way, doesn't prove it always will do that thing in that way. Well, I understand a legitimate scientist's need to think the right way, in order to avoid thinking the wrong way in other areas, where things aren't quite so certain. However, I'm free to say it: Gravity is a fact. There's a AA Energizer battery sitting next to my keyboard. If I pick it up, move it so that it's not above the table, and let go, it will drop to the floor. That's a fact, and I don't care what anyone says about proper wording of laws and theories and all that. I can test gravity by myself any time I want (in fact, I'm always testing gravity, whether I want to or not), and it will always work. I'm so sure of it that I won't bother testing it with the Energizer. *fights the urge*

But things are different for the topic at hand. As I've said a couple times, and nobody has contradicted me, we cannot even test what happened billions of years ago, much less prove that anything in particular did happen. We can only consider various possibilities. To quote some of my last post, we can't go back to primordial earth and see what happened. Nor can we recreate primordial earth, because there's a margin of error, maybe a big margin of error, in our theories about what the conditions were back then. Any theory we come up with about what happened back then is only provable in the sense that it may turn out that nobody ever proves that any aspect of it couldn't have happened. But we'll never have the opportunity of proving that it did happen that way. There are too many aspects of it that can't be tested in any way.

I've read at least a couple of different people's views of religion that are, to my mind, completely internally logical. Also, I agree with their morality. This is not usually the case. I don't agree with the logic or morality of nearly any religion. But the fact that I've found a couple of religions that I do agree with on these issues doesn't mean I believe them. I still need reason to believe. And the fact that there aren't any aspects of an origin of life theory that have not been proven wrong doesn't mean I'll accept that it is how things actually happened.

And is it necessary for a believer in God to believe that He (physically) created anything at all?

THIS is another topic entirely, and I'm not about to get into it!! Any believer in God can believe whatever they want, for whatever reasons.

If the answer to that question is yes, isn't any kind of research into the origin of anything herresy? As a non believer, at least, I would think that disrespectfull to God: "Hey! let's see if the old guy (in whom we strongly believe) created this after all!". If you ask that question, you do it because you believe he did not.

As another non believer (certainly not a believer of any specific creator, and still on the fence about the existence of any creator), I can easily imagine a scientist of profound belief who researches for the purpose of glorifying God. "Look at the genius and beauty with which God built our universe!" There must be scientists like that out there, some of whom do not see only the results of their research that they want to see.

Because a falsification of ay scientific hypothesis you may have does not prove the existence of a higher power.

Clearly. Of course, not falsifying any, or even every, scientific hypotheses does not disprove the existence of a higher power.

Maybe I'm just thinking my tax dollars shouldn't pay for origin of life studies.

So you only want your tax dollars to be used for applied research? two problems with that attitude:
1: Sounds like you think that all significant basic science, that can ever become the foundation of applied research that YOU can benefit from, has been done.

First off, that's a little insulting. I'm not always concerned with what can benefit ME. Things that are important to me are not always about me.

As for the practical aspects of this, I think I understand you. But I don't think I agree. If there is a choice between giving my money to a new type of telescope that they hope will detect some theoretical body, and a weird new technique that would... I don't know... help grow food, then I'd rather it went to the possible food.

2: If you only want to pay for applied research, how about those types that apply to areas you don't like?

Well, when we're talking about the money that I work to earn, I think I should be able to put it where I want it. (That's certainly not the case, but it should be.) And I want it where it can help people. And what's more, if I want to help fund research of diseases, but not research of energy sources, I should be able to make that choice. Maybe some things mean more to me than other things do. Who has a greater right than me to decide what I do with my money?

Yes, research in this field may end up stumbling upon something that cures cancer, but that kind of outside chance doesn't seem like good reason to me.

That's not so far fetched as you might think

Since so much of origin of life stuff research deals with genetics, I don't doubt it. But if that amount of effort went into cancer, meaning the money went to geneticists who were specifically studying cancer, it seems likely that the results would come at least as quickly.


(My daughter just knocked the battery off the table. )

[Xar]

No knowledge of anything could disprove God's existence. If someone believes, because of personal experience or feeling, then it would just be a matter of "Oh. So God didn't start it here, I guess he started it there.

True, but if you believe BECAUSE, or partly because the strinking complexity of life must have been Created, and not have evolved, then researching the origin of this complexity would be pulling the rug out from under you own belief.

As Fist said, since it is very unlikely that we will ever be able to develop a definitive theory as to the origin of life, given the lack of evidence we have about the conditions of the Earth at that time, let alone what sort of stuff floated in the primordial broth, this sort of possibility is quite unlikely.

I personally dislike the notion of: "God created this." Later we find a natural explanation. Conclusion: "God did not create this." This repeats itself untill we (Ultimately perhaps) find out that God didn't create didely. Would one still believe? And is it necessary for a believer in God to believe that He (physically) created anything at all? If the answer to that question is yes, isn't any kind of research into the origin of anything herresy? As a non believer, at least, I would think that disrespectfull to God: "Hey! let's see if the old guy (in whom we strongly believe) created this after all!". If you ask that question, you do it because you believe he did not. Because a falsification of ay scientific hypothesis you may have does not prove the existence of a higher power.

Wrong. First of all, as Fist pointed out, a scientist could decide to follow that line of research out of wonder for the complexity of what God created, and for God's greater glory; second, I still think you keep confusing "faith" with "blind faith literally following the Holy Book of choice". The latter will certainly consider it blasphemy to research into the origin of anything; but the educated faithful would not. As a believer AND a scientist, the question I would ask myself if I were to research something like that wouldn't be "let's see if God created this after all" (which is, anyway, the question a pretend believer would ask, not a true believer), but "let's see what we can learn out of what God created". And even if I were not to believe that God created anything directly on Earth, I can still see the Universe as his Creation, and therefore everything within it as an indirect reflection of that act of Creation - thus, a wonder and worth of being studied. The Universe is, strangely enough, described by laws we are capable of discovering and understanding, even exploiting sometimes; from that, if nothing else, I figure that God gave us brains and our curiosity to study His Creation and find endless sources of wonder.

These questions literally cannot be answered with absolute certainty. Can they?

Not many questions can. Sure that's not a reason to stop trying? Unless of course you feel that the subject at hand infringes on the territory of a presupposed Creator.

I keep thinking you see faith only in the "faithful adherent to the literal truth of the Holy Book" variety, I'm sorry.

Maybe I'm just thinking my tax dollars shouldn't pay for origin of life studies.

So you only want your tax dollars to be used for applied research? two problems with that attitude:
1: Sounds like you think that all significant basic science, that can ever become the foundation of applied research that YOU can benefit from, has been done.
2: If you only want to pay for applied research, how about those types that apply to areas you don't like?

I think Fist's point of view is just as legitimate... My opinion is similar to his, in that all too often it seems to me there are scientists pondering questions that will never, ever have any use in practical science - while those resources and that money (of which there is always shortage) could be put to better use by studying what will be helpful for those who now suffer, for example. Keep in mind I'm talking about life scientists here! I don't mean to say that other kinds of research should never be followed: I just mean to say that, as scientists, we have a duty towards those people who depend on us to find ways to help them - and only once that duty is discharged, we should turn our attention to more abstract fields of research. Then again, that's only my opinion.

[Prebe]

First off, that's a little insulting. I'm not always concerned with what can benefit ME. Things that are important to me are not always about me.

Sorry. It was poor wording on my behalf. What I meant was, that no real breakthroughs would be made, if we just cancelled research into things that did not seem immediately usefull. If people before us had not funded "useless" research, we wouldn't be where we are today. So you must be carefull what research you deem useless.

And even if I were not to believe that God created anything directly on Earth, I can still see the Universe as his Creation, and therefore everything within it as an indirect reflection of that act of Creation - thus, a wonder and worth of being studied. The Universe is, strangely enough, described by laws we are capable of discovering and understanding, even exploiting sometimes; from that, if nothing else, I figure that God gave us brains and our curiosity to study His Creation and find endless sources of wonder.

(Emphasis mine) So God created man?

[Avatar]

Some more interesting posts folks, although I think we're starting to sneak into the metaphysical again, (although how could we not? ).

While I agree in principle with Prebe that no research is useless, I sympathise equally with Xar. Especially in his view that corporations are influencing science too much. They hand out the grants, which means that they want to see a profit.

Some very interesting points raised here, where we skirt the edges of misunderstanding.

Does god have to have physically created anything?

Maybe, If I see where Xar is coming from (?), and perhaps in partial repsonse to Prebe's question, god simply described those laws, and everything arose in accordance with them, (intentionally or not)?

I don't know...for me, it's simpler I think. I draw a distinction between the possibilities of an active, participating god, god as a source of intent, (a plan), and "god" as a mere source of "energy," uninvolved and unconscious. Each option has a different level of acceptance (or potential acceptance) by me.

--A

[Xar]

And even if I were not to believe that God created anything directly on Earth, I can still see the Universe as his Creation, and therefore everything within it as an indirect reflection of that act of Creation - thus, a wonder and worth of being studied. The Universe is, strangely enough, described by laws we are capable of discovering and understanding, even exploiting sometimes; from that, if nothing else, I figure that God gave us brains and our curiosity to study His Creation and find endless sources of wonder.

(Emphasis mine) So God created man?

[/quote]

That's an oversemplification, Prebe... first of all, that's my personal philosophy, not necessarily the "official" line of thought, but if you want an answer along those lines, well, if God set the Universe into motion by setting all the laws that make life possible and that eventually led to us, then it stands to reason that He intended to make us. Even if you don't accept the concept of an omniscient or omnipotent being, it's impossible to believe that a being capable of setting the physical laws of the universe would not be able to know where they would lead. And, if God set into motion the Universe with its laws, then the short answer is, yes, obviously He created everything, directly or not.
Again, this is my personal philosophy, Prebe... But you asked and I answered

[Avatar]

it's impossible to believe that a being capable of setting the physical laws of the universe would not be able to know where they would lead.

Hmm, even allowing for the subjectivity that you clearly point out in your own post, I'm not sure this is so obvious.

It's perfectly possible, in my mind at least, that those laws could have been instituted without any prior knowledge of what the result would be...maybe as an experiment.

Just a thought.

--A

[Xar]

Well, even when making experiments, you usually have an idea of why you're doing it and what should be the results... we do theory before making experiments, you know But any intelligence capable of creating a Universe and finely define its physical laws should be capable of predicting where those laws would lead - simply due to the deep understanding of those laws that is necessary to manipulate them.

To clarify: if (as was said earlier) the Universe is fine-tuned to allow life to flourish, and this fine-tuning is evident in all universal constants and laws, then, assuming you accept the idea of a Being who set everything into motion, you have two possibilities: imagine that He just choose random values for each constant and it "just happens" that they were all the right ones as far as we're concerned, or He chose them all deliberately, in which case the very fact they're so carefully fine-tuned means that He knew what would come out of such a Universe. Otherwise, if this were simply an experiment, the fact that so many are exactly the right values for us makes no sense - it would be an incredible stroke of luck, and stretching the limits of coincidence far too much.

Of course, the above should only be a concern for those who do believe a Being set everything into motion, but who do not believe the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God.

[Avatar]

Fair enough, since I'm of the opinion that the universe wasn't (isn't) specifically fine-tuned as you put it.

I think that life tuned itself to fit in with the universe. Sure, life is possible here, (obviously ), but shouldn't the universe be more forgiving, (or at least, less exacting) if it were intended deliberately to contain life? Wouldn't there be more of it?

--A

[Prebe]

A belive in that God set it all into motion and knew exactly where it would lead corresponds poorly with the belief in evolution. Unless of course you think that God set the whole evolution (plus the dying out of 100000 of species) going, just for a show.

I'm sorry I don't get off you back Xar, but I simply must know how a molecular biologist of all things can believe.

Especially in his view that corporations are influencing science too much. They hand out the grants, which means that they want to see a profit.

And I agree too, as I stated. The thing is, that the majority of research money from cooperations do NOT go to basic "useless" research. They go to research with a very clear purpose e.g. "a cure for cancer". The money for the "useless" research, such as the origin of life, ususally comes from government coffers, because most companies are not willing to subsidise anything that does not have an immediate yield.

[Xar]

Well, how do you know there isn't? A common misconception seems to be that "life" = "intelligent life", but this is not the truth; it could be that all the extrasolar planets we have discovered so far harbor life, perhaps in some unicellular or primitive multicellular forms, even if their cellular composition would be different.

Anyway, I found a paper from a scientist arguing about the fine-tuning of the Universe and why it is currently one of the strongest arguments in favor of the existence of God; he also discusses several objections to it we've seen in this board, so I thought it would be interesting to read it. It's long though - be warned

academic.udayton.edu/WilliamRichards/Intro%20essays/Collins,%20Fine-tuning.htm

To be fair, I'll also say straight out that as far as I understand, the writer is a believer; regardless, the article seems to be as objective as possible, and anyway, I guess that in such cases, total objectivity could not be obtained from believers just like from atheists.

Here is also another interesting interview with a scientist and a believer who discusses why he doesn't see any contradiction with believing in evolution AND God, and why the whole discussion about intelligent design nowadays is stupid

www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/20 ... wnes.shtml


To be fair, here is also a link to an article by two atheist scientists arguing why fine-tuning should be held AGAINST the existence of God:

quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html

Although be careful, because they make different assumptions... the premise used by scientists who believe fine-tuning is evidence for theism leads to the conclusion that if there is a Being who could set natural laws and chose to set them this way, then the non-randomness of the existence of life makes sense. The above paper, instead, does not postulate the possibility of such a Being, and therefore argues that fine-tuning is there because if it were not, we wouldn't be here, and it further argues that to have proof of the existence of God, you should look for life that is not supported by natural laws.

Hope I confused you guys enough

[Avatar]

Well, how do you know there isn't?

At first I thought you were addressing this to Prebe, and I was going to make some remark (still true though) about how it's really the heart of the matter on both sides.

I realise though you meant my comment about how much life there is, and of course, you're quite right...I certainly wasn't limiting it to intelligent life either.

What I really meant though was that fragility...or rather, to be more accurate, the narrow spectrum that any life is limited to, in terms of the laws as we think we understand them. Now on the whole, that spectrum is fairly large, but for any given life form, I think you'll agree that it's actually pretty narrow...

..a certain temperature requirement, a certain level of O2, a certain amount of whatever. Each bit of life takes full advantage of its own spectrum, but is sharply limited to that spectrum...

To me, that suggests that life came about within the parameters of that spectrum, rather than the spectrum being made to sustain life.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

You know how in movies somebody's in a lab, they pour a drop of something or other into a beaker, and they get a BANG? Maybe that's how the Big Bang happened. heh

The money for the "useless" research, such as the origin of life, ususally comes from government coffers, because most companies are not willing to subsidise anything that does not have an immediate yield.

That seems to be an excellent point, and one I hadn't considered. (I keep out of the Tank because I know so little about such matters.) And now I wonder why the US govt would do it. People are always pushing for things like ID in science class, a ban on same-sex marriage because they think it goes against the Bible's teachings, etc. I wouldn't expect the govt to risk raising an uproar by funding origin of life studies.

[Avatar]

Because they might come up with an answer that's acceptable to to the people who are against all those things.

(And that's a lousy reason to stay out of the 'Tank Fist. If you must make an excuse, surely you can come up with one that's better than ignorance. Gods know it doesn't stop any of the rest of us.

--A

[Prebe]

To me, that suggests that life came about within the parameters of that spectrum, rather than the spectrum being made to sustain life.

My sentiment exactly.