Bad News for Creationists: Plausible Abiogenesis Path Found

[_JohnStuartMill]

Seriously -- there's no selection in the 747/junkyard scenario. The analogy would be much more apt if parts got locked together once they were in the right place, but even then it would have insurmountable flaws.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I say, look how unsurprising that there exists a guy who wrote an article for a religious journal that wants to assure us that despite the HH model there might still be a God. (Yes, there might)

This appears to be the sort of facile dismissal you criticized earlier in the thread, professor. Religious Studies is not a "confessional" journal; it is published by Cambridge University Press and it accepts submissions from atheists and other non-Christians. Moreover, the author of the article in question also wrote:

"But this sort of attempted proof of an absolute beginning runs into the following problem. The prediction, by a theory, of a singularity, is standardly taken as evidence that the theory has broken down. In the cosmological case, it indicates that there is an era in the universe's history about which we cannot rely on the Big Bang's predictions. The Big Bang theory is not telling us that the universe had an absolute beginning. The correct conclusion to be drawn from the singularity is that the theory does not tell us what happened in the earliest phase of the universe. A consistent picture of the earliest phase of the universe must wait until we are in possession of a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity.21 The difficulty raised here is a severe one: the empirical argument for an absolute beginning appealed to the singularity to conclus ively rule out the possibility of prior, physical goings on from which the Big Bang emerged. But it is the presence of the singularity itself which shows that we cannot rely on the Big Bang theory to tell us what was going on around about the time that the universe supposedly began. The empirical argument for an absolute beginning of the universe is impaled on the horns of this dilemma.

When Newton postulated divine intervention to correct planetary orbits so as to maintain the equilibrium of the Solar System, Leibniz famously charged that he was making God an inefficient watchmaker.22 Bringing in God when physics fails has been dubbed the 'God of the Gaps' approach. It is often pointed out that such postulations are vulnerable to advances in science being then taken to show that God is unecessary. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that bringing in God as the cause of the Big Bang is 'God of the gaps'ish. It may not always be mistaken to search for God in the gaps. For not all gaps are the same shape, and, to extend the metaphor, some may be peculiarly God-shaped. If, for example, we had shown satisfactorily that the universe began ex nihilo, from no prior cosmological goings-on, then the only available causes would be supernatural. It is not, contrary to the dogmatic assertions of some physicalists, a necessary presupposition of scientific method that every physical event has a physical cause, and it is exactly when origins are considered that making such an assertion may well be to beg the question.

But apparent gaps may merely reveal our ignorance of the true physical causes. Given the widespread success of the method of searching for physical causes for physical events, and given the subsequent removal of God from gaps in physics which were due merely to ignorance, we must give reasons why the Big Bang probably was not the effect of a physical cause, before we can claim that its occurrence is evidence for a supernatural cause. In view of the failure of the a priori and empirical arguments for an absolute beginning, I conclude that we are not currently in possession of such reasons."

I think the importance of the HH model for theology is overblown. It all comes out of the fact that Hawking made some quip about there being nothing for a creator to do. But, really, the atemporal block universe picture even with singularities undermines the importance of the idea of "first" cause where "first" is taken a a temporal notion. If one can say that a no-boundary HH universe could just exist uncreated without logical problem then it can also be said for a space-time with singularities--after all the puzzle should be invariant under time reversal and one only need recall that black holes are singularities that we can live with.
If one is willing to just accept the initial conditions as part of the package or if one posits that all initial conditions are realized for some universe, then either way there is no logical demand for a creator.

Where's the beef, professor? I realize that "HH" probably hits on just about all of your mathematical interests and expertise but where is the evidence that it is a legitimate model of the universe?

The guy in the article doesn't seem to realize that space and time are unified in relativity in a sufficient sense with or without the Hartle-Hawking complex spacetime trick.

I don't know much about relativity; I found it less interesting than (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics and other areas of physics but that was just an initial impression and I sort of regret my ignorance of it. Anyway, it is my understanding that time and space can still be thought of as distinct.

But I keep on wondering this: Why should a creator be an omnipotent and intelligent God?

For the purpose of the cosmological argument, the creator need not be the personal God of Christianity or other monotheistic religions. To quote the philosopher-theologian Brian Leftow:

"Our argument will conclude that there exists an unchangeable thing which at least partially explains the existence of changeable things. This abstract affirmation is a far cry from the claim that God exists. But the conclusions of standard cosmological arguments for the existence of an unmoved mover, a first cause or a necessary being are equally abstract, and despite this, some thinkers consider them relevant to the question of God's existence. We will explore our argument's relevance to this question in the last section below." (Brian Leftow, A Modal Cosmological Argument, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 24, No. 3)

[_mikwut]

Hello Sethbag,

Hope? Hope in what? I hope I don't get laid off in the next few months as my company is swallowed up by another, but I very much doubt that's the type of hope you are talking about.

I hope in you not getting laid off as well, and although your example is subsumed in the idea of hope you are right, I was thinking more ultimately maybe existentially.

A lot of LDS hope that when they die that some spirit essence of them will survive, and that it will exist in a place where the recognizable spirit essences of all of their deceased loved ones will also be. They hope that at some point in the future a new physical body will be created for them, that this spirit essence will combine with that body into a perfect physical form, patterned after the one they have now only perfect and without the flaws they now have. They hope that they will be judged worthy, and that they will flash the secret handshakes to the angels that stand as sentinels at the gates of Heaven, the angels will let them in, and they will become gods, and populate entire future universes with their own spiritual offspring, all while enjoying the society of, and worshiping, and being happy and blessed in the company of Jesus, and his dad named Elohim, and the other turtles all the way down.

I am not sure, yes and no. Most LDS in my experience 'believe' in these things, and I would agree with you that conditioning is a great part of how that 'belief' flourishes. I think the theistic concept of hope is much more illuminating and satisfies me more.

And there's not a scrap of evidence that any of this even exists. And lots of reasons to regard those who claimed to "reveal" all of this to us as being non-credible.

Agree and disagree. I agree that much of religious professions of faith get cluttered with fear, pride and arrogance and are indeed non-credible. But it is the "scrap" adjective I find disagreement with. I find many atheists to have a wonderful virtue of demanding evidence for their beliefs, which is great, but failing to recognize the differences of faith and hope with belief. The scraps are very important. I will elaborate. Certainty is not a virtue nor obtainable, regarding God, but our existence theologically isn't in the scapheap of evidential obtainment, there is a evidential spectrum that exists for all of us. Atheism is possibly true, theism is possible true and nihilism is possibly true.

The 19 hijackers hoped for 72 virgins in Paradise when they hit the wall at 500 mph. Was there hope really a net positive, either for their own lives, or for anyone else in the world?

Oh I think they did much more than that. They propositionally, axiomatically even, accepted that as fact.

At what point does "hope" cross over from being a helpful, and mostly harmless emotion, into being full-fledged delusion?

I think there are several dimensions in answering this. First when it isn't "hope" but merely wishful thinking, and when it is immoral.

Mikwut, what is it that you hope for? How does this hope help you in your life? Those are two serious questions, and I will not mock your answers.

I hope for the same things you do, I have two daughters and my hopes for them are shared with yours. My hopes for humanity are the same. But I don't fear unbelief or lack of belief, too me the real, the profound theological battle is masquerading as 'belief' when it is really found in meaning and purpose. I fear nihilism, and I hope against it. I hope for genuineness and I hope for real meaning for my existence, I hope my general perceptions of that meaning are somehow valid and veridical. I hope in Love and meaning. I hope for existence beyond this and hope meaninglessness isn't the end of it all. And, I hope Jay Cutler can be successfully replaced.

In this thread ultimate meaning and purpose are the heart for me. And hope offers an attitude towards this engagement. One may doubt, that is, lack propositional belief, and yet have faith in God. Unfortunately the majority of Mormons never make a basic confession, the confession that everyone is a religious doubter. Doubt haunts most of us it does me. I doubt deeply but I keep a profound hope. Most of our beliefs aren't volitional, they are dispositional - we can't help them they simply obtain as responses to states of affairs in the world. But our hopes are acts of our person and wills. I hope every year the Broncos win the super bowl, this is not a mere wish because it is a possibility even if the evidence is often weighted against it. For those who experience this life where direct belief in God is impossible for them, hope is a sufficient substitute for belief in God. Hope precludes certainty and hope entails a pro-attitude for the state of affairs in question to obtain or the proposition to be true. Hope includes risk. There is no certainty regarding the existence of God so there is no belief ethic violation in choosing hope in God. Hope is a certain kind of faith. And hope is profound when it is juxtaposed with real demons like nihilism rather than (in an ultimate sense) silly propositional demons like were there really nephites and the like. Just because the emperor isn't wearing the most beautiful garment we imagined doesn't mean he isn't wearing anything at all.

I will tell you what I hope for, now that I've learned that the hope preached by the shamans, witch doctors, and religious imposters has proven to be nothing more than pipe dreams.

I hope that my current improved diet and exercise program will succeed this time, and I'll lose some weight and get in better shape, so I can live longer and more enjoyably.

I hope I get accepted into the Masters program in German at ASU in the next couple of months. I just graduated from Boston University with a Masters in Computer Science, and realized that I don't feel done yet, and would love to study more in German, the subject in which I received my Bachelors degree from BYU.

I hope my daughter gets into a good university in a year and a half.

I hope that I will be a better father and husband, and a kinder human being to those with whom I come into contact.

I hope that humanity will learn how to live with each other in peace and stop killing each other.

I hope that false religious paradigms that enslave peoples' minds and motivate them to set themselves up in opposition to others, and foster hate, distrust, and enmity amongst people will fail and go the way of the Dodo.

I hope that when I die I feel like I've accomplished something with my life, and left behind people whose lives I will have influenced for the better, and who will remember me fondly

God bless you Sethbag, truly. You are a remarkable person and I sincerely wish your honest journey grace, honesty is a lonely walk and it is remarkable to me how few Mormons or theists for that matter truly respect and understand the walk of disbelief. I share your hopes.

'm still trying to understand how the concept of "hope" motivates someone to accept and believe things about Life, the Universe, and Everything, on insufficient evidence. Please help me see your view on this. Whether I accept it or not, at least I'll understand where you're coming from.

Lousi Pojman gives a good example of this motivation. He says, "Suppose you are fleeing a murderous gang of desperados, say the Mafia, who are bent on your annihilation. You come to the edge of a cliff which overlooks a yawning gorge. However, there is a rope spanning the gorge, tied to a tree on the cliff on the opposite side of the gorge. A man announces that he is a tight-rope walker who can carry you on the rope over the gorge. He doesn’t look like he can do it, so you wonder whether he is insane or simply overconfident. He takes a few steps on the rope to assure you that he can balance himself. You agree that it’s possible that he can
navigate the rope across the gorge, but you have doubts whether he can carry you. But your options are limited. Soon your pursuers will be upon you. You must decide. While you still don’t believe that the “tight-rope walker” can save you, you decide to trust him. You place your faith in his ability, climb on his back, close your eyes (so as not to look down into the yawning gorge) and do your best to relax and obey his commands in adjusting your body as he steps onto the rope. You have a profound, even desperate, hope that he will be successful.
This is how I see religious hope functioning in the midst of doubt."

There is a tragedy in existence that all real truth seekers see, perceive and "get", the tragedy of human existence, that unless there is a God in some conceptual framework and life after death, the meaning of life is less than what we imagine, and possibly even grotesque and fearful to look at (we need not agree on meaninglessness here for my point to be salient), but if there is a God and life after death, that meaning is profound and rich. There is just enough evidence to give the disbeliever the choice to hope. The hoper seeks and plumbs for a better story. That's what motivates my hopes.

my best Sethbag and thankyou for not mocking, mikwut

[_Some Schmo]

Seriously -- there's no selection in the 747/junkyard scenario. The analogy would be much more apt if parts got locked together once they were in the right place, but even then it would have insurmountable flaws.

Not to mention gradual modification, replication and heredity. How does one junkyard’s state relate to the next in this scenario (if it's supposed to represent evolutionary theory)? Are we talking one junkyard that keeps getting tossed about or several different junkyards? If one, then it’s akin to the moronic statement once made on a Christian website, “How can a monkey evolve over a million years…? Oh that’s right; monkeys don’t live for a million years.” If it’s more than one, then how did the junk yard replicate itself? How is one an ancestor the next?

Any time someone pulls out the "how can randomness create something" argument, it betrays their massive ignorance on how it really works. As I've said before (and stated in a long thread about a year ago in which dart's ignorance was really exposed), it's not just willful ignoring of the facts. When you've got people out there making stupid, inaccurate "analogies" like this one, it harms unsuspecting people who would likely be inclined to accept evolution by clouding their understanding of it in addition to the people making/repeating the ridiculous arguments in the first place.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I'm not talking about anything that would overturn Big Bang theory.

1) Big Bang theory does not establish creation ex nihilo.

(Speaking of Dr. Morriston: http://www.philoonline.org/library/morriston_5_1.htm)

I've seen him and I'm not impressed. (Incidentally, how is he any more "forceful" in his arguments than Graham Oppy or others who have criticized William Lane Craig's argument?)

But let's say it did. The more important point is

2) Necessary metaphysical strings are not contradictory to big bang theory and are, to some extent, required to make sense of it just as the same as if you argue a personal cause outside of time caused the Big Bang. The regularity of reality, for instance, is modally necessary because there is no possible world in which it is not true and rationality is coherent. That's true regardless of whether God, the universe-causer, exists or not. God is constrained by logic in order for the concept of "God" to be coherent,

Well duh. Nice attempt at smoke and mirrors.

...and that means logical rules exist metaphysically prior to God.

Not necessarily.

You're saying the universe, meaning space-time that exists post Big Bang, is contingent. Ok. Contingent on what though? It need not be a personal cause. At least no one has been able to establish that. All I pointed out is that some rules that guide how reality will play out can cause the big bang to be as it is. This merely needs to be possible in order for it to be alive option. And that's true if God exists as a metaphysical go-between in any case. This doesn't contradict Big Bang theory in any way. The universe qua the aggregate of all things, which includes God in the event it exists, already can be an ultimate cause of the Big Bang in precisely the way you would be trying to use God. So the mere existence of the Big Bang can't argue for the specific existence of God since there's no reason to preference that kind of cause over any other.

The linchpin of contingency arguments is establishing the necessity (or even likelihood) of a personal cause, and suffice to say they are not successful at that point.

I answered this in my response to Professor Tarski (q.v.)

[_EAllusion]

I've seen him and I'm not impressed.

Well, that's that. And, of course, I'm not impressed by those you have a history of being impressed by.

(Incidentally, how is he any more "forceful" in his arguments than Graham Oppy or others who have criticized William Lane Craig's argument?)

I like the way Morriston articulates his arguments. I think the counterarguments that exist are fairly basic and made by any number of individuals. After all, cosmological arguments are rejected for roughly the same reasons they always are. As new quirks are added to them, quirks get added in the replies, but the substance doesn't change drastically.

Well duh. Nice attempt at smoke and mirrors.

And here I thought I was answering your question.

Not necessarily.

It's necessary if the concept of God is coherent. And if the concept of God isn't coherent, then any assertion about a God causing a universe is by consequence incoherent as well. It need not take any temporal priority, of course. All I'm stating is the classic Platonic position that God must be necessarily constrained by logical rules, meaning that God, in order to be a meaningful concept, can't do things like violate the law of non-contradiction (for instance, exist and not exist). To say that logical rules take precedence is to say they are metaphysically prior. Of course, in the lay sense of the term, it is entirely possible that reality isn't constrained by logic. But that's not the sense I used. (There ultimately are any number of hypothetically possible metaphysical rules that can constrain the God of a cosmo argument.) Really, this is just an extension of what you said, "Well, duh" to, so I don't think there's really much of a dispute here.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Well duh. Nice attempt at smoke and mirrors.

And here I thought I was answering your question.

The basic requirements of logic and regularity do not magically transform a contingent universe into a necessary one.

It's necessary if the concept of God is coherent. And if the concept of God isn't coherent, then any assertion about a God causing a universe is by consequence incoherent as well. It need not take any temporal priority, of course. All I'm stating is the classic Platonic position that God must be necessarily constrained by logical rules, meaning that God, in order to be a meaningful concept, can't do things like violate the law of non-contradiction (for instance, exist and not exist). Of course, in the lay sense of the term, it is entirely possible that reality isn't constrained by logic. But that's not the sense I used. Really, this is just an extension of what you said, "Well, duh" to, so I don't think there's really much of a dispute here.

I was objecting to the statement: "...and that means logical rules exist metaphysically prior to God." I admit that as a possibility, but it is also possible that the laws of logic are "co-volitional in respect of God," provided that they cannot be annulled once God has willed them.

[_EAllusion]

The basic requirements of logic and regularity do not magically transform a contingent universe into a necessary one.

Uh? I acknowledged the contingency of the universe in the sense of space-time post Big Bang, or at least was willing to grant that part of the argument for argument's sake. And what I called necessary was some basic metaphysical rules that underly all that exists. In actuality, even more rules that exist might constrain what might exist or happen, but all I'm stating is that logic is necessary. As you said, "well duh" but it was an important point in an argument I was setting up.

I admit that as a possibility, but it is also possible that the laws of logic are "co-volitional in respect of God," provided that they cannot be annulled once God has willed them.

Yeah, this kind of solution ultimately isn't coherent. You have two possibilities. The first is that God's will necessarily obeys the laws of logic as we understand them. There exists no possible world in which God could exist and the laws of logic be willed differently. If this is the case, God is contingent on what the rules of logic are, and therefore we can say logic is metaphysically prior to God.

The second is that logic is contingent on God's will. There exists possible worlds where if God's will was different, logic would be different. (If God's will could not be different, then that's the first option). While I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "once God has willed them" since we are talking about something existing outside of time, if God can will logic to be different than what it is, then he could have willed a situation where the laws of logic as we know them are both simultaneously true and not true. In other words, since there was no logical rules to determine how God would will logic to be, that means the content of logic as he willed it does not need to be self-consistent even if he wills it to be self-consistent. It could be anything. Literally any proposition possible about God is true (or false), even if it contradicts any other. This destroys rational coherence.

[_JohnStuartMill]

There is a tragedy in existence that all real truth seekers see, perceive and "get", the tragedy of human existence, that unless there is a God in some conceptual framework and life after death, the meaning of life is less than what we imagine, and possibly even grotesque and fearful to look at (we need not agree on meaninglessness here for my point to be salient), but if there is a God and life after death, that meaning is profound and rich. There is just enough evidence to give the disbeliever the choice to hope. The hoper seeks and plumbs for a better story. That's what motivates my hopes.

my best Sethbag and thankyou for not mocking, mikwut

Mikwut, I want to start out by saying that I appreciate your sincerity. Your framing of the question of God shows honesty and maturity, and I don't want to treat it flippantly. But there's a lot to disagree with here.

Why do you think life be more profound if there were life after death? I realize that many people believe this, but I haven't yet seen a reason why. Personally, I don't see much of a difference in meaning between living for 80 years on Earth, and living forever in heaven. My suspicion is that an eternity in heaven only sounds good to people now because they haven't actually experienced it. In fact, they can't experience it, at least on Earth, which renders aspiration for heaven the ultimate "grass is always greener" phenomenon. Human beings are naturally dissatisfied; I'm skeptical that heaven would put dissatisfaction to rest once and for all.

Let's say that it does, though: if heaven really is the recognized universal optimum of happiness, it would render hope (i.e., a wish for a higher state of happiness) impossible. Do people really want to live in such a world? I'm not sure that I do.

My fundamental disagreement with you, mikwut, is on the idea that meaning can be foisted on humanity by a superhuman force. I don't think it can. Let's do a thought experiment: what if it were discovered that we were created by a superintelligent alien race, who knew that our wars would provide them with gladiatorial entertainment? Would that imply that war is the meaning of our existence? I reject that conclusion; I believe that we can create meaning for our existence apart from our creators' purpose. (This reminds of the is-ought fallacy committed by the people who say that if humans evolved to commit infanticide and rape, then those crimes could not be gainsaid.) Analogously, I believe that if the Mormons are right that God put us on this Earth to fulfill the plan of salvation, then it doesn't follow that celestial procreation is the meaning of our existence. Ditto for every other conception of God.

In a nutshell: the meaning of one's existence can only be created by the self. "Meaning" created by anything else isn't really meaning.

[_dartagnan]

I'm still chuckling to myself about the "lots of tornados through lots of junkyards" comment. If that doesn't demonstrate his fundamental lack of understanding, nothing does. hehe

Uh, it is our analogy and it is obviously you who doesn't understand its point.

Seriously -- there's no selection in the 747/junkyard scenario. The analogy would be much more apt if parts got locked together once they were in the right place, but even then it would have insurmountable flaws.

Um, you're right, and that's the whole point of the analogy. Thank's for illustrating the point that critics here don't even understand the analogy to begin with. But I don't expect that should stop them from pretending to have refuted it. No selection you say? Well of course not. And guess what? There's no selection going on during abiogenesis either! That's what makes the anaolgy so beautiful and effective. Your problem is that you assume the mechanisms of evolution are at work, but these can only take place when life already exists. In this instance, we're talking about pre-life events.

The dogma of naturalism supposes that life came about by the blind forces of nature. Somehow, somewhere, at some time, some liquid got mixed in with some gases (they can't seem to make up their minds which liquids or which gases), which received a shot of lightning and perhaps a dose of radiation from a solar flare or whatever. Who knows, maybe there was a ful moon too. This is the quintessential Frankenstein hypothesis. But we can't call it what it is because that sounds more fictional than scientific!

Naturalism supposes that "whatever it was," that happened, life naturally appeared from non-life. People don't generally understand how ridiculous this is because they don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it. So the analogy puts it all into perspective for us. And this is why the atheists hate it so much. They can't refute it and it makes them look just as silly as any religious nut. It reveals just how much blind faith they have in naturalism. It would be more intellectually honest if they just said they don't know. But they insist they do know. It happened by natural forces (wind, rain, comets, solar flares, llghtening).

Natural forces.

That is precisely what a tornado represents. The only valid complaint about this that I have read from atheist websites, is that it doesn't make a perfect analogy since it isn't sufficiently incremental (and EA's best response is that it has to be wrong because creationists use it ... ).

So fine, that complaint is easy to remedy. So let's just suppose a million tornados hitting the same spot over the course of three billion years. Doesn't have to be a junkyard. It could be a sea containing every element there is. That should be enough material and enough time. But there is still no reason to suppose it would produce a Jumbo Jet. So why would we suppose it would produce the first living cell?

If we think about it, this analogy is really way off because it is too generous. Why? Because the simplest living cell is infinitely more complex than the most technologically advanced aircraft. And this analogy only addresses its structure, whereas a cell has not only structure, it also has "life." Now Tarski sympathizes with people like Daniel Dennett who are functionalists and suppose things like machines, zombies or computers are as much "alive" as organisms snce they move around and serve a function. I'm really hoping that is how most atheists end up arguing.

But back to the analogy. In order to make it perfect, we would have to suppose the tornado produces a Jumbo Jet that flies on its own, reproduces itself, adapts to its environment, etc.

When I get back to Brazil I'll quote some of these guys who admit that at some point, one has to admit that something of "a miracle happens." That's the only way they can make sense of life coming from dead matter - when they are honest.