My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

As you well know self consistency is the first thing to investigate in an hypothesis...if you miss that there is nothing to be agnostic about it.

You are not correcting anything I have gotten wrong. Actually, you cannot, because I have not gotten anything wrong in this discussion so far.



And I would never say that you are. So why is this being presented?



Here is what I am agnostic (small "a") about:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

I've already given you that.




What are you talking about?

Read the small print again.



Read the small print again. It is VERY CLEAR.



Read the small print again. It is VERY, VERY, VERY CLEAR.



I am guessing that you are being "purposefully difficult" as a courtesy to you...as a mark of respect. If you are not being purposefully difficult, it would mean you are stupidly being difficult...and there is no way I will ever accept that you are stupid. You are an intelligent individual. Use that intelligence to see that I am being totally clear on the point you seem to want to contest. Contest it using my definition of what I am intending.

You keep being pushy and play offended, but OK we've got something more the Creator, now specifically of our physical Universe. Now that is tangible. I waited a long time, many years for you to give me that. Long ago I once asked you to define the God/s you were agnostic about and your skipped it like if the word was a Universal...let me tell you even among theologians and scholars it is not. There are many definitions of God in which no act of creation is entailed, rather God incorporates the whole of Reality a priori. I wanted to know which was it.

Now I will give you my PERSONAL counter, the one I use to myself, to dismiss such hypothesis. That is, the Reason why I can't make a division between Creator and created. You make of it whatever you very well want!

First I am not convinced Cause and effect are fundamental.

Second I am not convinced Space and Time work the way we perceive it. In fact since Einstein we have a long list of reasons to doubt that and with it the classic notions of cause and effect as we use them in everyday life.

Further, I have no Reason to believe, given the classical definition of God, that any attribute that exists in the World does not primarily have to exist in God, at least potentially...that is the creation ad nihil if not from within the very attributes of God makes no coherent sense, is not self consistent. This alone already violates the very basic definition of Creation as a concept. As I see it God is "transplanting" not "creating" from Non Being.

I will give you an example God cannot create illogical things, like for instance something more powerful then him if he is defined like the ultimate power, as he cannot create a married bachelor.

Whatever attributes the world has were already Real in God.

Going a bit back in the conversation I asked Leadfoot if he was going to escalate the definition of God for a Being that exists outside of Spacetime to escape the complexity question and dodge the eternal regression of cause and effect...as from it I cannot see what is the difference between God and a Super Rock.

You see I am not puffing smoke weed when I raise my counters I spend my all life playing Devil's advocate and thinking about it as best as I could.

I was once agnostic about God as you claim to be. I am not presently for the reasons I described above. Any concept of God I am left entertaining these days, on the style of Spinoza's God is so alien to common sense that I rather skip the coinage.

Hope that helps clarify why I had to ask you the attributes of the God or Gods you claim to be agnostic about! Thank you for your time!

In an effort to bring some structure to the discussion, I was following debate format. The argument would follow the premise against, which I have yet to see, other than observations of fractals and 'ultimism'. (Spellcheck does not even recognize that as a word).

But thank you for asking, I intended to do so if asked.
My opening argument is the requirement for an intelligent actor in the 'emergence'/design of proteins and how they are made. You may have seen it in other threads like ‘Intelligent Design, ….'.

————————————————

WHY ABIOGENESIS REQUIRED INTELLIGENT DESIGN

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'natural abiogenesis' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual and functional illustrations of proteins such as dynine, myosin or kinesin.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I and many molecular biology scientists use the term 'machine' for proteins because of their interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that its construction is very specific and functional. Remove or change even a single part and it will not work.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab (see Miller - Urey experiment) is as close to creating 'life' as we have come. Even though amino acids can potentially form naturally, that in no way proves that they are capable of assembling themselves into biological life. But because amino acids can be found in nature, one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

The fact that amino acids have been found on meteorites is often cited as evidence for extraterrestrial life. This is equivalent to assuming you can get New York City by dumping a load of building blocks on the banks of the Hudson River and waiting long enough. That will not happen even if you wait for the entire 13.8 billion year age of the universe. 'Time' is not a magic ingredient that can build anything. 'Time' is actually a deterrent to life forming because the necessary molecular chains are broken down just as fast as they can form by earth’s environment. Water itself is a solvent to them. Making first life naturally under those conditions would be like trying to build a house during a hurricane.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein starts out as a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. (See 'Undeniable', Douglas Axe, 2016) For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different functional proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Conclusion:

Keep in mind that there were not billions of years for this to happen. Every year there seems to be a new finding that pushes back the origin of life further all the time. The latest estimate (2022) barely gives the planet time to cool off before life started.The origin had only a few hundreds of millions of years to happen, not billions. And that basic template of DNA/protein based biological life has not changed in the following four billion years.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds of that string of amino acids being functional are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a functional protein by accident is impossible, in spite of the incredible odds.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein based machine in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.

One more time: It's not the complexity, stupid.

A fractal can be complex. But it cannot produce anything like biological life. Complexity is not the answer.
I can only conclude that you cannot discern the difference between a forest fire and a fireplace. They both involve fire. Neither is complex, but one required an intelligent actor, the other did not. Could you tell which one was designed if I didn’t tell you?

That is how ******* obvious it is that we are the product of an intelligent mind. (Assuming you answered yes)

You are conflating a lot of things.
First my use of a fractal pattern just means you have a loop in which the end goes back to the beginning of the pattern, there are several Cosmological models being debated right now that have just that feature.

Second of all, the problem of complexity was framed ages ago regarding transfusing from the Universe to God without providing an explanation, nothing new here, you skipping one step when it comes to God makes no sense as you have to explain where the complexity of God came from if you frame God as an entity within spacetime, or, you have to frame God outside spacetime and explain how does it make sense to call such a thing God in the classical sense, a personal God. You are better of using a term like Nature which is less confusing.

Finally and I reiterate, the question I just posed you is well know both by Philosophers or Scientists, I didn't invented it, tho I thought about it on my own before I heard it from someone else later on.

Also please refrain from calling me stupid, I often feel you are deliberately playing stupid when I've given you a crystal clear argument that you fake not understanding but that exists formally whether you know it or not. Suffices to say that whoever reads this and is knowledgable on the topic will know exactly what I am referring to and will know exactly who is being stupid, even if the vast majority reading does not know which is which...you see I am not concerned with applause or verdicts ad populum...I am concerned with what someone knowledgeable on the topic will think about my rational, my train of thought.

Given that many scientists who fully understand the complecities of DNA would draw the opposite conclusion, I don't see that anything is at all obvious.

However, I thank you for answering the question.

It reminds me of the statement in the film The 9th Configuation, (which is excellent btw.)

The 9th Configuration itself is the point just before life appears, where lots of different amino acids are sloshing about waiting for some burst of energy or whatever to kick everything off.

(According to the film,) the odds of that happening are pretty infintesimal, although I understand the odds have shortened somewhat of late.

Thank you for answering the question and I can see how someone could come to the same conclusion as yourself.

Here’s the problem. You want the subject to be 'the classical definition of God.'

At least Frank knows what the subject is.

The arguments for a fractal Reality are IMO stupendously elegant!

In a fractal you have no growth of information, you have completion, tho "motion" never stops.

In a fractal reality does not expand into Nothingness which is perhaps the worst concept still alive on language...rather you have a return to the same initial set of sequenced information. Perfect balance where you can fit a finite yet complete set of all phenomena.

In a fractal there is no magic, no origin from Nothingness nor expansion into Nothingness, just a loop, and within it all the shapes and forms the world can have, all the possible Big Bangs, in sum a huge Rubik's cube.

Most of the structural problems vanish when you take a fractal to explain it.

9th Configuration, great flic, saw it on your recommendation I believe.

I thought it may have come up before.

You may go on in your fractal loops ad infinitum. I need to move on.

Sheeeesh, no I don't, hence why I firmly asked for your and Frank definition anticipating exactly that dodge...I admit I have mentally worked on the classical Abrahamic definition, but I can work with whatever you give me...so far you have not described your God hypothesis and how it differs from the most known classical definition. So what am I suppose to counter when you do refuse to clarify the terms?

Stop being a jerk...I was not a jerk to you and if that is where this conversation is going then I rather leave it as is. Whoever reads it will judge it for what is worth. That is the good thing about what is left written behind. People can reflect upon it sentence by sentence.

For the last 2 decades, I have given the same information I just gave you here. I have been ostracized by many in this forum for being what they call "a one trick pony" because I have been so consistent.


I assert that I have NEVER "tried to skip it" or avoid giving my take on it EVER.

If you can produce one thread where I avoided dealing with it, I will apologize. I may have, but I certainly do not remember doing so.



I do not know if what we humans call "the universe" was created or not. I have mentioned that hundreds of times in this forum. It may have been...it may NOT HAVE BEEN. If it was, that rather strongly suggests a "creator." My take...takes all that into account.



Okay. Neither do I.



Okay. Neither am I.



I do not do "believing" (when it comes to stuff like this)...and I am not interested in making blind guesses.

I am not sure what else you are saying there, but I agree with what I do feel you are saying. Nothing there in any way negates what I am saying in my take on the issue.



Sound solid to me.



Haven't the foggiest idea of what you were trying to communicate there.



Okay. I just want to say that I do not understand the notion of "supernatural." To my way of thinking, EVERYTHING that exists is a part of nature...so if there is a GOD, then the GOD is NOT supernatural.

There are many things humans cannot see or otherwise detect. That does not make those things outside of nature...just outside the sensory abilities of the animal homo sapiens.



You still have not indicated one thing that disputes anything I said in what I refer to as "my take on the issue." But you seem to be thinking that you have.

What is up with that?





If you have something to say to dispute my take...offer it. I do not care what descriptor you assign to yourself.



I have told you for the first instance EXACTLY what I am talking about when I use the word "god" in this discussion. So what is your problem?

I have NEVER dodged that question, Albuquerque...and I would appreciate it if you would stop inferring that I have.

Frank lets cut short I was referring to the self consistency of the hypothesis of God not to the actual existence of God.

Read it as follows IF God were to exist and the natural world exists with such and such attributes they cannot come from Nothingness whatever that means.

I am making a case that if the God hypothesis was to be taken seriously then it follows that any attribute seen in the natural world first would have to be potentially present in the so called mind of the creator. That alone VIOLATES the definition of the concept of creation!

In such scenario THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION!

Izzy, are you following this stuff going on between Albuquerque and me?

I meant to add that the ID argument on proteins has been had between some of the very top molecular biologists in the world. I’ve watched every one I could and by any objective measure of points of argument made, the ID affirmative side won decisively every time.
- Leadfoot

If any scientist tells you the solution to abiogenesis has been found, he’s lying to you.

- James Tour

>who later had to apologize to the Academy, but only for lack of decorum, not for being wrong<

I wont bother to look for any clarification and march on on all your posts. Please quote me a passage where you clarified what sort of God you were referring to, to me. I apologise in advance if I did not saw it!