by Sea Breeze 70 Replies latest social current
These sort of arguments for God depend entirely on obfuscation and equivocation.
What do you mean by god? You can pretend you only mean some unknown source of 'information' but really you are trying to open the door for the god of Jesus who worries about who we sleep with.
The more difficult it becomes to defend the god of the Bible the more theists want to retreat to the magical world of theoretical physics.
but it's also equally true that were talking about biochemical reactions that happen all on their own even in the most primitive forms of life
Resolving that question would require us to go back to the source of life itself, which is the million dollar question and what the whole debate is about.
--Interesting patio conversation over a beer, but not a question that can be resolved with a magic bullet.
@TD I agree that it is an interesting conversation and I appreciate everyones contribution. But with all due respect, there is no such thing as a primitive form of life. A single cell has thousand of functions, parts, production factories and waste management systems. It has been likened to the complexity of a large city.
Cats knocking over beer cans and wind letting you know that a front is blowing in is far different than the instructions necessary for a functioning city, single cell or how to collapse a chunk of carbon into an information wave and make it reappear as matter.
We have a pretty good handle on DNA coding. I predict that we will learn more about Quantum physics and maybe even discover some hidden information code that is fundamental to matter.
@Cofty you are trying to open the door for the god of Jesus who worries about who we sleep with....theists want to retreat to the magical world of theoretical physics.
So are you in the same camp as Dawkins where you are not opposed to imagining an information source as long as it doesn't judge you? You and Dawkins have both invoked aliens before.
Imaginary aliens as an explanation for the information source is far from science, it is quite literally science-fiction.
Why not just posit a single original source instead of aliens? Seems much simpler and doesn't kick the can down the road.
I have never referred to 'aliens' as a source of life on earth in my entire posting history. Please stop lumping everybody who disagrees with you into the same stereotype.
I have however described the latest research on abiogenesis many times.
You have STILL refused to address your basic confusion regarding the nature of 'information'. Your original sin is equivocation.
the nature of 'information'. Your original sin is equivocation.
Cofty, please give us the benefit of the doubt, accept the broadest definition of information. so
would wisdom be information? I came upon this: Prov 8, "wisdom" existed before the creation of the material world. so it says.
I was trying to bolster Sea Breeze's fascination with waves, because it says somewhere in the scriptures that the Earth was brought forth like in birth pangs. You can see these "waves" printed out as they happen. or how about "brain waves" ? so:
recent images and articles confirm that the rings, precursors of planets, in accretion disks of new stars are the result of resonances, standing waves. Our solar system displays a 5 minutes, (.3 AU ) wavelength / frequency bsw.
Below is a link to a series of short interviews where people like Sean Carroll and Alan Guth give their opinions on this topic.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-the-foundation-reality
Maybe we could all agree that none of us know the ultimate answer to the puzzle of why there is something rather than nothing.
The real difference between us is our commitment to limiting our knowledge-claims to things that can be objectively demonstrated. Theists want to make grandiose epistemological claims about reality, based entirely on 'faith'. But when they lose their nerve they want to pretend their assertions are actually rooted in some esoteric field of theoretical physics that they don't begin to understand.
The many things that science has still to discover should not be the places where you try to hide god.
'Information theory' might be a problem for a straw-man who apparently denies the existence of the non-material but it is not a dilemma for the rest of us.
a straw-man who apparently denies the existence of the non-material
cofty, since you seem to deny, disparage the existence of the non- material [information] are you calling yourself a straw man?
straw = without solid core, full of air
kidding aside, The "god of the gaps", hiding in the yet to be closed voids in our knowledge is alive and well. At least we we will, in narrowing it discover the works of a possible creator, shaper. and
as you have pointed out, he can be nothing as depicted in the old fairy tales.
I have never denied the existence of what SB refers to as ' information'.
My objection is that he is conflating two different senses of the word and misrepresenting the views of people who don't ascribe to theism.
You can make a theist or spiritualist spin their heard around by asking them to define a god through information.
