Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  BarefootServant

  Hi Dave,

  There are a lot here, like you, that are in reactionary mode, and I understand since I too was once under WT mind-control. Like you I would currrently run a mile from involvement in organised religion. But this does not prevent me from believing in God and the scriptures, although I am less confident, and less dogmatic, than I once was.

  I understand the differences between engineered, purpose built objects that don't reproduce and biochemical systems that evolve and reproduce.

  But what if we engineer objects that do reproduce? Conceptually there is no reason for us not to, and technology-wise we already have nanotechnology on the drawing board. There is no reason that nanotechnology should not, at some time in the future, behave exactly like life does; reproduce and if you believe it, evolve, since Darwinian rules must apply equally to all reproducing entities where variation is possible and there is some form of selection.

  In my nanotech-life on the moon scenario, no one has taken up the question: Is it rational to insist that "there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men."?
• 

  BarefootServant

  Irkr said:

  I'm really hoping for an anti-athiest argument that makes some sense. At least then there can be a discussion. Right now, its like watching a Superbowl between "any other team" and the Buffalo Bills.

  The argument is that strict atheism is a belief system like any other. However this does tend to get bogged down in semantics since there are differing opinions and therefore plenty of wiggle room as to what an a-theist is. It turns out that many atheists (including Dawkins, if you believe him) say they accept the possibility of the existence of God, but just do not see any evidence for it. Personally I prefer to call this agnosticism, but moving on from the semantics we get to the interesting question of what would be considered evidence for God for these atheist-agnostics? Which is why I posted my nanobot scenario and if you'd care to think about it I'd be interested to know whether you would consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon as admissable evidence for alien intelligence.
• 

  Satanus

  Barefootservant

  Scientists admit that they don't know about over 90% of the universe, Therefore, your suggestion of the existence of little gree men has an open window. The evolution principle is conducive to other forms within the universe.

  S
• 

  mkr32208

  Because nanotechnology is non organic the idea that someone had to originally build the machine would be LOGICAL. The idea that someone had to put the first organic life together is counter to all scientific knowledge to date. Might that change in the future? Yeah maybe but will the change be "some invisible magic man in the sky did it..." Seems unlikely...

  As to the crack about the Bills... That hurts man, that hurts...
• 

  PrimateDave

  Nanobots on the moon - hypothetical scenarios - simply don't interest me.

  Let me make this simple. If I find a termite mound, I know it was made by living things. It may still be inhabited and maintained by termites. The mound is a purpose built object. The termites are evolved lifeforms.

  Humans went to the moon. They left purpose built objects on the moon. If a non-human intelligence found those objects, it may deduce that they were brought from the nearby planet. Upon examining the nearby planet, this non-human intelligence might discover the remains of human activity from the plethora of decaying purpose built objects. It may even find the evolved lifeforms descended from Homo sapiens [sic], now returned to life in the canopy of tropical forests or grazing kelp along side sea otters and manatees in shallow coastal seas.

  Where will "god" be in all of this? The same place it has been. Who knows? Who cares?

  Dave
• 

  BarefootServant

  Scientists admit that they don't know about over 90% of the universe, Therefore, your suggestion of the existence of little gree men has an open window. The evolution principle is conducive to other forms within the universe.

  You seem to have missed the point. The question is, would you consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon as admissable evidence for alien intelligence? From what you said, I assume your answer is yes. If such complexity and apparent evidence of design is admissable evidence for alien intelligence, then why should life on Earth not also be regarded as admissable evidence for alien intelligence? Remember, we have an equally applicable alternative explanation for both.

  Because nanotechnology is non organic the idea that someone had to originally build the machine would be LOGICAL. The idea that someone had to put the first organic life together is counter to all scientific knowledge to date.

  Why should the idea that non-organic machines having a designer be any more logical than organic machines having a designer? Both types of machine are made up, at the fundamental level, of molecules specifically organised to do certain jobs. It's just chemistry. We classify 'organic' molecules as opposed to 'inorganic' molecules because 'organic' molecules are associated with living things. But it is a fact that neither organic nor inorganic molecules have been observed to give rise to self-replicating machines. All "scientific knowledge to date" confirms that even the most basic form of life is very complex indeed, and as far as I'm aware there is not yet a single credible theory as to how a self-replicating machine could spontaneously start, whether inorganic or organic. In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins has a jumbo jet in a scrapyard, lacking only one component to finally complete it as a fully functional machine, and he claims it doesn't require much imagination to see it completed, given enough random events thrown at it. Whether you buy into this proposition or not is one thing, but he doesn't differentiate in principle between organic and inorganic evolution.

  Where will "god" be in all of this? The same place it has been. Who knows? Who cares?

  I can't speak for anyone else, but I do (care, that is).
• 

  Caedes

  BFS,

  I would say that a hypothetical discovery of nanotech on the moon would be evidence of alien life although my first thought would be that humans were responsible as that would be more likely than alien life leaving advanced technology lying around for anyone to pick up.

  Unfortunately that is where the analogy ends because there is an important distinction between what is natural and what is artificial. If they case that this hypothetical technology was so advanced as to be indistinguishable from natural life then I would take that as evidence of evolution on another planet.

  Perhaps you could give an example of your hypothetical in-organic evolution on earth, incidently there is an example of organic molecules giving rise to self replicating machines - DNA.

  You are missing the point in your analogy, since the supernatural is by definition automatically discounted within science then no amount of scientific evidence can prove that god did it. If you can provide some evidence of a designer that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it, but the simple fact is that you can't because there is no such evidence. Everything that has been put forward by the proponents of intelligent design (what a misnomer!) has been roundly discredited by real science.
• 

  Caedes

  Atheists dilemma? - looks like yet more examples of logical fallacy.
• 

  mkr32208

  Why should the idea that non-organic machines having a designer be any more logical than organic machines having a designer?

  Do you REALLY not understand that distinction? Well go take some real collegiate level biology courses and then get back to me in a year or two...
• 

  BarefootServant

  I would say that a hypothetical discovery of nanotech on the moon would be evidence of alien life

  Even though it can be explained in evolutionary terms just like life on Earth?

  Unfortunately that is where the analogy ends because there is an important distinction between what is natural and what is artificial.

  Nope, there is an arbitrary distinction between what is natural and what is artificial, a circular definition that says life is non-artificial and only the non-artificial can live.

  If they case that this hypothetical technology was so advanced as to be indistinguishable from natural life then I would take that as evidence of evolution on another planet.

  Even if scientists insist that this technology can all be explained by applying Darwinian principles?

  Perhaps you could give an example of your hypothetical in-organic evolution on earth, incidently there is an example of organic molecules giving rise to self replicating machines - DNA.

  Dawkins claims he has achieved inorganic evolution (lookup memes, I think), also some scientists have applied evolutionary principles to electronic design. There is no reason at all to suppose that Darwinian principles, if they work, shouldn't apply to inorganic processes. And no, there are no examples of organic molecules spontaneously giving rise to working DNA.

  You are missing the point in your analogy, since the supernatural is by definition automatically discounted within science then no amount of scientific evidence can prove that god did it.

  Actually my analogy is about little green non-supernatural beings, and my question was all about whether we would accept evidence of design in complex mechanisms as being evidence of alien intelligence, even if there was an alternative Darwinian explanation.

  If you can provide some evidence of a designer that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it

  There, you said it. Let me rephrase your statement in reference to the nanobots: "If you can provide some evidence of alien intelligence that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it". In that scenario, do you regard this as a rational statement?

  but the simple fact is that you can't because there is no such evidence.

  Surely the evidence is staring at you in the face: a whole race of nanobots on the Moon that look for all the world like they were designed.

  Everything that has been put forward by the proponents of intelligent design (what a misnomer!) has been roundly discredited by real science.

  I'd say it's more likely the nanobots were designed by an alien intelligence.