> Atheist debate: Anthropic principle and ockhams razor

[Qatada]

Asalam alykum
Bro Abdul Fattah, atheist replies to Ockhams Razor argument, and gravity and other issues:

Http://forums.islamicawakening.com/p...-claims-2.html

Do you want to tell me how i can reply to specifically Eoin? It might benefit me for future articles insha Allah.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
In my opinion Ockhams razor doesn't work for complex differences like between the theist/atheist. The matter is simply to complex to compare in a simple balance.

As for Eoin's post; I would reply:

I disagree. Your concept of creation is that everything was created by a deity who is by definition the most extraordinarily complicated entity that has ever or will ever exist. You define 'God' as being so out of this world that the very concept of what God is or what God thinks is beyond our most basic comprehension. This God you purport exists is infinitely intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal.

First of all Ockhams razor is not about how complex an explanation is, rather it's about how "unnecessary complex" it is. Secondly whether God is infinitely and extraordinary complex is debatable and depends on the view one has of a deity. Thirdly, both theists and atheists are biased here. To an atheist who is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. A design or a creator seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist who already believes in a Creator, but who does not believe in coincidence, such a notion of “coincidence” looks like an uncalled expansion of his world-view.

By contrast, to explain abiogenesis itself we need only to explain 3 things. Firstly we need to explain how a molecule replicated itself spontaneously. Secondly we need to explain how the information to build another molecule came to be passed from the original replicator to subsequent generations of replicators. Finally we need to explain how a capacity for error was built into that system of replication. Once we have established that, then evolution through natural selection fills in the subsequent 3 billion years.

First of all, the anthropic principle is not limited to abiogenesis alone, so it's an unfair representation of you to say that in contrast you need to explain only 3 little things. Secondly, there's no universal standard to "measure" the unnecessary complexity of your alternative worldview.

A self-replicating molecule is a very unlikely thing to arise spontaneously - extremely unlikely in fact. However it is important to consider that when we have 1 billion years to play with before the first life came into existence, and we have 100 billion billion earth like planets in the universe to play with, so an event with a likelihood of 1 in 100 billion billion billion is actually pretty likely to happen.

First of all, to speak of abiogenesis in terms of probability is deceiving, and unscientific even. There is currently no explanation of how abiogenesis could have occured, despite many efforts to create one. So it's not the case that it's unlikely to have occured instead it's impossible to have occured trough natural processes. There simply aren't any (known) process which could have generated such a result. So the number of planets, and the amount of time for it to occur doesn't even come in to it. A million years still doesn't make the impossible possible.

However, even if the chances of Abiogenesis (i.e. spontaneous self-replication) were 1 in 1000000000000 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion then that would still be simpler to explain than your hypothesis of a God.

This is an incorrect usage of Ockhams razor. The word chance can mean two things:
1) An event with no causal origin.
Or B) An event with follows a causal law, and thus has a causal origin, but which is so complex we are unable to calculate it. (i.e. the outcome of teh lottery).
I take it, then when you speak of probability of abiogenesis, you're refering to B), and not A). If so, then you're in a way admitting that your explanation against the anthropic principle is incomplete! And the incompleteness of your alternative explanation is covered up by the word "chance". However Ockhams razor only works when comparing two theories which are equal in value by all other standards. This criteria is clearly not met here, so ockhams razor cannot be used.

The reason I can be certain of that is because whatever the unlikelihood of spontaneous self-replication, the chances of it are at least still quantifiable.

No, you believe it to be so. There's not actually anything you can use to back up that statement scientificly.

From our knowledge of the universe we know that such a thing is not impossible

From our knowledge of the universe we can also see that God is not impossible. That however has no bearing on which of the two explanations is most unnecessary complex.

we can see plenty of self-replicating molecules on earth, while the odds might be tiny that one could form spontaneously they are still measurable in principle. God on the other hand is not quantifiable, God is infinitely (< Yes infinitely) more unlikely than spontaneous abiogenesis thanks to the fact that his attributes are all synonymous with infinity. (Infinite knowledge, infinite power, eternity etc.)

If your standard for what is possible, or for what is plausible, is only that which we can measure, sense and so on. Then you, by your narrow-minded viewpoint of the universe are closing off a whole world of plausible logical and philosophical ideas. Not everything that is real, is therefore also measurable.
Furthermore, it's a logical fallacy, to think that God himself is infinity complex because some of his characteristics are infinite. (fallacy of composition)

The mistake you have made is to think that because God is 'easier' to explain, that this translates to 'simplicity'. That is a fundamental mis-interpretation of Ockham's Razor. If I asked you, "Why do we feel the affect of Gravity, why don't we get thrown into space?" You might well answer, "God is pushing everything down all of the time." Now that IS a simpler answer to type than a 8 years to get a Phd in university level physics, but no sane person could seriously believes it is the correct answer! That answer would be a complete mis-use of what is meant by 'Simplicity' in Ockham's Razor.

Gravity doesn't explain why we're not falling into space. Instead it only explains how. We haven't got the faintest idea of what causes gravity. Many people might assume that gravity is a result of some intrinsic characteristic of the most basic particles which cause the force. However that is pure speculation, for all we know gravity is just a display of God's divine will. And there's no objective way to weigh off which one of those two believes is the least unnecessary complex.

If I asked you to 'prove' Pythagorus' Theorum and you managed it in 2 pages, and I managed it but took 200 pages, then your answer would be genuinely simpler than mine and would therefore be more likely to be the correct one. That is what Ockham's Razor means. If you seriously think of what 'God' actually entails, then God is far far far away from simplicity. God is unimaginably infinite complexity. God is Ockham's Razors worst nightmare.

It's kind of ironic to see you try and explain the concept to brother Qatadah, when you seem to be missing a vital part of the idea yourself. It's not about which explanation is more simple, but rather which is the least unnecessary complex.
If I write 200 pages, and none of them have unnecessary complex parts, whereas your 2 pages are full of them, then yours is still less likely to be true according to ockhams razor.[/QUOTE]

[Qatada]

the guy called harbi said;

You didn't say that God is falsifiable, but you did say that based on Ockhams Razor, it's more convincing and probable that 'God did it. Since Ockhams Razor excludes unfalsifiable theories, "god" is never the answer if using Ockhams Razor as a tool.

how do we respond to that?


And i hate it when atheists say things like;

Maybe We'll never find out if the universe is dependant on something outside its boundaries.

how are we even supposed to respond to something like that?



jazak Allah khayr for the help.. i know i'm ignorant, but through these experiences - i learn more to find the missing gaps, and the answers to them.



ps: that eoin guy likes long debates, so i might get more replies from him which might require further debate.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

the guy called harbi said;

how do we respond to that?

Ockhams razor doesn't exclude anything. Ockhams razor simply says that when two competing theories are by all other standards equal, the one with the least unnecesairy complexity is most likely to be true. So, when two theories compete, and one is falsifiable and the other not, we cannot use ockhams razor, because the two theories are not "equal by all other standards". However when you have two competing views in which neither is falsifiable, then ockhams razor could still apply.

And i hate it when atheists say things like;

how are we even supposed to respond to something like that?

Whether or not we think we'll be able to find out, that shouldn't stop us from investigating and forming theories and getting ideas. If people in the past would have approached elusive matters like this in a similar way, we wouldn't have the advancement we have today.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


he replied;



Spot on! We don't know why gravity does what it does. If however you are prepared to entertain the belief that gravity could be a display of Gods divine will then I think that suitably concludes the discussion on Ockham's Razor. Think of the appalling precident your statement sets:

"How does a diesel engine work?"
"Well the diesel is injected into a sealed cylinder where it is heated by compressed air, the energy released by the combustion of the diesel is harnessed to drive the vehicle."
"But why does the diesel release energy during combustion?"
"Because the combustion of carbon and hydrogen results in CO2 leaving free energy leftover from the reaction."
"Why do carbon and hydrogen release this energy when combusted?
"The simplest and therefore correct answer by Ockham's Razor is that it's a manifestation of Gods will!"

Think about this. By your argument one could take any household appliance and regress its mechanics to the point that the appliance is fuelled by Gods will. According to your argument, when it comes down to it, my AMD Phenom 2 is powered by Gods Will. This perspective doesn't explain anything at all! All you have done is to posit that the answer to all questions mankind cannot currently answer is that it's a manifestation of Gods Will . That's not even an argument, it's just a bald assertion. You might be trying to use 'God' as the explanation for Creation, but by extension you have invoked God to explain every unsolved puzzle presented to mankind. Your statement can equally apply to anything and everything!

Now you might not have a problem with believing that everything is a manifestation of Gods will, some religious believers seem to really love that possibility; but think for a second about the seed you have just sown. It is the same God of the Gaps view of the world which led Vikings to view lightning as manifestation of Thors rage. It is nothing more than the academic sloppyness of invoking God as the plug to fill gaps in human understanding, and to me that is a betrayal of the faculties of logic and reason.

I do however wish to comment on some of what you said. I picked abiogenesis in my last post specifically as a response to you when you said, "Infact, if we look at abiogenesis [life coming from non life], we see that staunch atheists [like Antony Flew] became believers in a God after they realised there wasn't a valid enough theory to argue in favour of their claim of abiogenesis."

I wasn't endeavouring to explain the origin of the universe as a whole or address the anthropic principle. We cannot know what 'caused' the universe because the state from which the universe emerged was not subject to the laws of causality and therefore to speak of a 'cause' is itself speculation. There may not be anything analogous to causality 'outwith' the universe. (And certainly the word 'outwith' must also be speculation.)

However to return to abiogenesis I think from reading what you've said that you are labouring under a large mis-apprehension. We know that evolution creates organised complexity through tiny incremental copying errors which are selected for by natural selection. That is accepted scientific fact. If we extrapolate that process backwards, then in the beginning all we need to explain is 'something' (e.g. an individual molecule) which was capable of replicating itself and passing on information to the next generation replicator which in turn produces another copy of itself and so on and so forth. Through time, mutation and natural selection we can then explain all the life around us entirely rationally.

The big question then when we discuss abiogenesis is, "How did a molecule come to create a copy of itself?" I put it to you that the answer to that question is where you are becoming confused. We know of many different types of molecules which reproduce copies of themselves. What is confusing you is that nobody can tell you the chemical formula of the molecule which kicked off the whole process of life on earth, and nobody has yet demonstrated an appropriate molecule forming spontaneously under laboratory conditions. It is a distinct possibility that we will never know what the chemical composition of the first self-replicating molecule was, because even if somebody were to demonstrate spontaneous self-replication in the laboratory we would not know with any certainty that it was the particular molecule type in the laboratory which led to all life as we know it. However on the second point, I wish to return to the matter of probabilities because it is why you were wrong when you said, "..it's not the case that it's unlikely to have occured [abiogenesis] instead it's impossible to have occured trough natural processes."

I want to make to you the following point which I've largely stolen from Richard Dawkins book the Blind Watchmaker. (Credit where it's due!) We know from what I've written above that we need to explain spontaneous self-replication. To reduce that problem down to its base level we need to explain how the right combination of atoms came together into a single molecule and started the process of self-replication . This is what I meant when I said that the occurence is extremely unlikely, because even the simplest self-replicating molecules contain many thousands of individual atoms which would all require to have come together in the same place and in the right order to generate a self-replicating molecule. We cannot work out the exact improbability of this happening because we don't know the chemical formula of the molecule that life evolved from, and we don't know which types of atoms were jostling around in the primordial soup when the molecule formed, and therefore we can't put an exact figure on how unlikely such an event would be. However what we can say with certainty is that we can reduce the problem of abiogenesis down to one of statistical improbability, whatever that improbability might be.

So how much improbability are we going to permit ourselves? In a technical sense it is possible to ascertain a statistical improbability to being struck by lightning (unlikely for any individual humans lifetime but not unheard of), or for the statue of liberty to start waving. (< That is extremely improbable but would be possible if all the electrons in the hand moved in the same direction at the same time, though the improbability of it happening though could only be expressed as a massive exponential which humans would normally categorise as being 'impossible'.) As I said in my previous post though, the rough amount of probability we can afford to 'spend' on abiogenesis is probably about 1 in 100 billion billion billion. That is to say that there are 100 billion billion earth like planets in the universe, and a billion years in which the event has to take place. Depending on the exact chemical formula of the replicator we are positing, and on the chemicals present on early earth like planets, there is no reason why the improbability of spontaneous self-replication should be in excess of 1 in 100 billion billion billion. (One in a 100 billion trillion to use the shorthand.)

As we are dealing with such huge improbabilities we have to throw out the window what we would normally consider likely or unlikely. If human beings lived 1 billion years we would never cross the road, because during our lifetimes it would be a 100% certainty that we would eventually be run over and killed. The point I'm making is that our own human conceptions of improbability are therefore useless when talking about abiogenesis (the formation of the first self-replicating molecule) because in universal time scales our own conception of probabilities are anthropomorphized to deal in things we consider likely or unlikely based on a lifetime of less than 100 years. I don't personally see any prohibitive technical problem with the view that such a self-replicating molecule could spontaneously form, as if the chances of it happening are anything less than 1 in 100 billion billion billion then it's positively likely to happen somewhere in the universe! Either way though, it is eminently possible for abiogenesis to occur naturally and it is certainly not 'impossible' as you stated.

Kind Regards,
Eoin


Children are born believers in God, academic claims

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Brother, I fear this might take a while as we're quickly going away from the central theme of that thread.

Originally Posted by Qatada

Spot on! We don't know why gravity does what it does. If however you are prepared to entertain the belief that gravity could be a display of Gods divine will then I think that suitably concludes the discussion on Ockham's Razor.

I strongly disagree. Ockhams razor doesn't have anything to do with it. My ponit is that science fails to explain it. Either you believe God does it, or you believe something else caused it. But eitherway it's a belief.

Think of the appalling precident your statement sets: "How does a diesel engine work?" ".... "The simplest and therefore correct answer by Ockham's Razor is that it's a manifestation of Gods will!"

Yes we believe that any manifestation of any of the four natural forces are in fact a manifestation of God's habitual will, whereas on the other hand supernatural phenomena are a manifestation of Gods unhabitual will.

Think about this. By your argument one could take any household appliance and regress its mechanics to the point that the appliance is fuelled by Gods will. According to your argument, when it comes down to it, my AMD Phenom 2 is powered by Gods Will.

Yes of course, because any device or whatever relies on the fources of nature which we believe are constantly upheld by Gods will.

This perspective doesn't explain anything at all!

It doesn't explain more nor less than the alternative. It's an explenation that is logical, plausible and consistent. Perhaps you might have issue with it, which I grant is off course your perogative. But then again that's neither here nor there.

All you have done is to posit that the answer to all questions mankind cannot currently answer is that it's a manifestation of Gods Will .

That is an innacurate representation. The muslim viewpoint on this issue has not significantly changed since the beginning of Islam, up untill now. Despite many scientific advancement the Islamic creed is still 100% compatible with our scientific views of the world. So you might claim that we're merely claiming the few bits that haven't been explained yet, but that's hardly a truthfull representation. Whether or not mankind is able to answer these questions is a moot issue. We believe it that everything happens in accordance to Gods will, and since science doesn't contradict that, I don't see how thats an inferior position. In fact I'd even take it a step further. This is not a problem which is intrinsic to our belief, but rather this is a problem which is intrinsic to science!
By the rules of engagement set in science, certain answers are by default left out. Science is by design of methodology very limit iin its scope of investigation and can only go that far. while science has it's benefits, in terms of certainty and reliability, we need to acknowledge its weaknesses as well. Just because science fails to analyse a part of reality, doesn't mean we should not by any other methodologies theorise about any such parts.

That's not even an argument, it's just a bald assertion.

I could say the same for your, or anybody elses alternative.

You might be trying to use 'God' as the explanation for Creation, but by extension you have invoked God to explain every unsolved puzzle presented to mankind. Your statement can equally apply to anything and everything!

Again, you're expressing a very tainted representation. We are not "using" God to explain things. This is part of our faith. And in fact I find it significant that science has not contradicted this in any way.

Now you might not have a problem with believing that everything is a manifestation of Gods will, some religious believers seem to really love that possibility; but think for a second about the seed you have just sown. It is the same God of the Gaps view of the world which led Vikings to view lightning as manifestation of Thors rage. It is nothing more than the academic sloppyness of invoking God as the plug to fill gaps in human understanding, and to me that is a betrayal of the faculties of logic and reason.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because there might be similarities doesn't mean it's the same. Just because their believe was false, doesn't mean that ours is just as well. And just because their believe stopped them from further investigation, doesn't mean ours does as well. I thank you for no longer commiting such condescending sweeping generalisations again in the future.

However to return to abiogenesis I think from reading what you've said that you are labouring under a large mis-apprehension. We know that evolution creates organised complexity through tiny incremental copying errors which are selected for by natural selection. That is accepted scientific fact. If we extrapolate that process backwards, then in the beginning all we need to explain is 'something' (e.g. an individual molecule) which was capable of replicating itself and passing on information to the next generation replicator which in turn produces another copy of itself and so on and so forth. Through time, mutation and natural selection we can then explain all the life around us entirely rationally.

Lol, are you serious? "all we need is just ...".

Criteria for the first life

At first one might suggest that the first life form was a virus, since that would have been the easiest to create, since it requires the least number of parts. However a virus is parasitic in nature, and needs a host to reproduce. Another problem with the idea of the first life form being a virus is, that even if there would find a way that this virus would reproduce, it would never be able to evolve into a one-celled-organism. As soon as it would do so, the new evolved organism would immediately be invaded by it's brethren viruses, and wouldn't stand a fighting chance to survival. For this and many more problems, most abiogenesists suggest that the first living organism was a single-cell organism. But even the most simple one-celled organism is incredibly complex when looked at from a chemical level. It requires very specific molecules to be build in very specific manners at very specific places. It's like suggesting that a fully operative factory with working personal included was created from a tornado passing trough a scrapyard and then passing trough a cemetery. Even if the explanation brings you the right components, the tornado lacks the methodology to make those parts into a working plant with living operators. I said "even if", because neither abiogenesis nor evolution can even account for all the necessary parts, let alone explain how they were used together to build a cell. So let us consider what criteria the first biological entity should have had in order to evolve into the different species we know today.

• A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.
• A way to harvest energy.
• An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.
• A way to reproduce.

1. A container that keeps the different parts of the life form together.

For the first part, the container, that sounds very plausible at first. From a chemical point of view, it's not that hard to create a membrane. And some promising work has been done in this field. However, that doesn't cut the mustard. A simple membrane enclosing all the parts would make it a closed system, we need our organism to have some basic interactions with its environment for the second criteria. If our organism should be able to harvest energy from it's environment, it needs "floodgates" in it's membrane that keeps harmful substances out but allows useful ones to enter. There can of course be many substances speculated on which this alleged first organism survived on. So depending on which form of energy it lived on, we need to adjust our membrane to allow that specific substance to pass.

2. A way to harvest energy.

We also need some organelles to harvest and convert this energy. The energy will among other things be required to counter entropy at some point and guarantee the survival of the organism. Entropy is a measurement of disorder. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will increase for any closed systems which are dynamic. Thus at some point our first life would need to counter this , and that would require harvesting energy. Examining the possibility of this, of course depends on which form of energy our hypothetical life system lives on. Evolutionists propose that the first organism was a prokaryote; an organisms without any organelles in its cell that have a membrane-boundary. Most such organisms harvest energy by converting Di-hydrogen (4H2) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) into (CH4) and (2H2O). This is a process that requires very specific catalysts. Not only to convert the Carbon dioxide and Di-hydrogen to produce the methane; but also to fix a small remaining percentage of the CO2 into the cell structure.

3. An information carrier like RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid.

The biggest challenge to the theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter. But we encounter a paradox a bit similar as the chicken or the egg problem. Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox. Nucleic acids are made with the help of proteins and proteins are made with the presence of their corresponding nucleotide sequence. So which of those two was first? The chicken or the egg? Common sense suggests that they were both created independently; which is even harder to phantom.

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances that are harmful to life also were created trough the process. Next to that the experiment didn't account by far for all types of amino acids required to make the needed proteins. Furthermore the experiment also failed to explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. Furthermore, there were both left handed as well as right handed isomers in a 50% to 50% ratio, whereas only one type is used in our DNA.

Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true. But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.

But that's just the beginning. Next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of other criticism exists as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidises anything it comes in contact with. This oxidation is quite destructive. Some scientists reply to this that the atmosphere didn't contain oxygen at that time. Be that as it may, no oxygen means that there also was no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it. And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

Another angle to looking at it -panspermia- is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.

4. A way to reproduce.

Reproduction is obviously also a vital part. If the organism just dies out without reproducing itself, the process of abiogenesis would just have to start all over again. As I said before we would have to have the right nucleic acids and the right proteins as well. The process of DNA reproduction, which is vital to cell division and reproduction is a very complex process which relies on different organelles.

Conclusion.

So I think you would see by now that the process of abiogenesis is most unlikely. And by unlikely I do not mean there are a number of different possible outcomes of which abiogenesis is just one. I do not mean it as a statistical implausibility. It is unlikely much rather because the circumstances allegedly giving this outcome are insufficient to explain the process at all.

And there you went and summerised it in a single sentence, for a second there making it seem as if that's hardly any challenge...

I want to make to you the following point which I've largely stolen from Richard Dawkins book the Blind Watchmaker. (Credit where it's due!) We know from what I've written above that we need to explain spontaneous self-replication. To reduce that .... We cannot work out the exact improbability of this happening because we don't know the chemical formula of the molecule that life evolved from, and we don't know which types of atoms were jostling around in the primordial soup when the molecule formed, and therefore we can't put an exact figure on how unlikely such an event would be.

Again, In science on a chemical level there's no such things as probabilities. Instead there's simply causality. Cause and effect. And either a certain process with a certain result is possible, or it isn't. Probabilities don't come into the equasions. So far all scientific ressearch done in this field point towards the conclusion that it is not possible.

However what we can say with certainty is that we can reduce the problem of abiogenesis down to one of statistical improbability, whatever that improbability might be.

No, I insists we cannot. there is no known process trough which this could have occured, so speaking of probabilities instead is deceiving. Nature doesn't follow probabilities, it follows causality. You can try and reason about probabilities as you wish, but nature cannot be reasoned with.

[Qatada]

bro Abdul Fattah, i don't mind it going further from the main aim of the thread, because i wanted answers to these issues beforehand anyway, and they're all being addressed, so jazak Allah khayr! :D

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


he replied here;

Children are born believers in God, academic claims



[its abit long so i havn't pasted it here]..

[Abdul-Fattah]

Hi

Let's take stock of this situation. You say that abiogenesis is impossible (we will be discussing this presently), and so Ockhams Razor should be applied to abiogenesis and that the least needlessly complex explanation is divine creation.

- First off all, I don't think ockhams razor can be used. The usage of Ockham's razor was a mistake by Brother Qatadah in my opinion. Comparing whole paradigms is just to tricky. The initial premise of ockhams razor, that both are equally valid by all other standards is in my opinion impossible to validate in the first place when analysing whole world-views. Secondly, the notion of "unnecessary complex" explanations will be different for each depending on each paradigm. So ockhams razor really isn't up to comparing viewpoints which are so fundamentally different at such a large scale.
- On another matter. It's impossible to prove the impossibility of something. that would be similar to try and prove the non-existence of something. It simply cannot be done. However, I don't think I need to prove it. For the moment there doesn't exist a working theory of abiogenesis! The only thing we have is loose hypothesis, with big missing gaps. So again, the premise for ockhams razor is not met, because the abiogenesis-alternative isn't even worked out completely.

I say that abiogenesis is not impossible, that Ockhams Razor cannot properly be applied in this situation because I argue God is infinitely more complex than any natural explanation.

While I agree with you, that it cannot be applied, I disagree with your motivation. First of all I disagree with your premise, that God is infinitely more complex. Secondly, even if for the sake of argument I would accept it, then still that shouldn't lead us to conclude that ockham's razor cannot be applied. It could lead to the conclusion that ockhams razor favours abiogenesis, but if, and only if it can be demonstrated that it is not only more complex, but also unnecessary more complex!

Providing that I successfully dispute your assertion that abiogenesis is impossible through nature, there is no need for us to debate the matter further. However as an aside, I want to bring up skepticism for the whole notion of using Ockham's Razor in the first place, as the endeavour strikes me as unsound.

The need for dispute is relative to begin with. I'm doing this more as a favor to brother Qatadah, and from a sense of responsability to share what I know rather then out of enjoyment. Getting back to your point, even if you would be able to prove that abiogenesis is possible, then you haven't progressed anything, because then all you have accomplished is to defeat a straw-men you 've put up yourself.

Like the Vikings, Thor and lightning, we have no idea what caused creation or even whether 'causation' is an applicable concept in creation discussions. Your argument for using Ockham's Razor is that God is the only plausible explanation that you are aware of.

Only the opening post had Qatadah relying on ockham's razor, afterwards he asked for my help in debate, and the following posts have been from me. My argument is that God is the only plausible explanation, and that ockham's razor doesn't even come into the equation.

But you must surely concede that to a Viking, Thors Lightning was a budding candidate for Ockham's Razor - for exactly the same reason that Allah's creation is a candidate for Ockham's Razor in your eyes. (This applies equally to abiogenesis, feel free to argue whichever you wish.) My point in the previous post was not that the Viking's were wrong about lightning and therefore you are wrong about creation, that would be a logical fallacy as you stated. My point was that you are endeavouring to rationalise your own theology by employing the same methodology that a Viking may have used for lightning. I'm not trying to berate your sensibilities by pointing out that the Vikings were wrong about lightning, but that the methdology which you are employing to draw a conclusion based on Ockham's Razor is akin to the Vikings.Surely you must either concede by your own logic, that a Viking in 1000AD would have been 'correct' to assert that Thor causes lightning via Ockham's Razor, or you must alternatively provide a rational justification for Allah's creation (or abiogenesis) not being analogous to Thors lightning. By 'analogous' I don't mean Allah is synonymous with Thor or creation with lightning, but that the methodology is analogous because the Viking's could not have known the explanation of lightning just as we cannot know the cause of creation/abiogenesis? (The inference being that this methodology is unsound)

Well, I hope it is clear by now that my approach to the subject is different, since I don't rely on ockham's razor. Regardless, I am still able to meat your challenge, albeit merely for teh sake of argument again.
1) You yourself already pointed out that Thor and Allah are not analogous, so that's already sufficient ground to say that Islamic-Creation-theory is different from Germanic-Creation-theory. And the differences certainly do not end there. Just because both are creationistic theories, doesn't mean that what holds for one holds for the other as well. That would not be logical.
2) Islamic-Creation-theory is not an unnecessary complex explanation, whereas Germanic-Creation-theory is.
3) Islamic-Creation-theory is fully compatible with logic, philosophy and science, whereas Germanic-Creation-theory is not.
I thought I'd already thought you how not to make the sweeping generalisation fallacy, perhaps you were unaware of the depth of your fallacy which I already pointed out in the previous post?

Yes I'm serious. Your copy/paste job only addressed what I've already said while referring to specifics.

The reason why I asked if you're serious, is because even though you mentioned a few points, you belittled the requirements, and didn't even mention all the requirements. That you were able to quickly mention a few specific hardly did the issue justice.

However the authors conclusions are somewhat brazen and I hope you'll pass on the following to its author.

The author of that copy paste is me, the guy who's been taking brother Qatadah's place after the opening post. the copy paste comes from my website, My paradigm - My paradigm
I also fail to understand, what a lack of shame would have to do with it. Why should my writing, if it is not personal, have shame in it? Or were you perhaps just looking for any adjective, which would express your finding of this text as inferior, and at the same time would allow you to easily back out of?

The author of your cut and paste job begins by saying that, "one might suggest that the first life form was a virus." Well "one" might very well state that, but "one" would be silly. How exactly does "one" arrive at the conclusion that the first replicator was a virus when the definition of a virus is as a parasite, when there were obviously no hosts for such a parasite to inhabit? Does the author of the cut and paste have any foundation for setting up this 'virus' strawman? e.g. Any scientific theory which suggests the first replicator was a virus? Or did he/she just assume that "one" might assume life originated as a virus and decide to write about it?

You need to do your homework before you start jumping to conclusions. This idea is not a straw-men on my part as you suggest. It comes from the RNA-world-hypothesis; which is actually gaining allot of popularity lately. So it's definitly not a strawmen argument. That such RNA's would have no hosts to be parasite in, is quite right, and is a big problem for the RNA-world. However that doesn't mean such RNA-replicators shouldn't be refered to as viruses. Does a virus stop being a virus when you sneeze him out and he lands in your Petri-dish? Do we define and class life-forms (if you can call a virus a life form in the first place, but that's a whole different discussion) by their environment or by their characteristics?

I claim exemption from having to address this bizarre strawman until I am provided with a single instance of a peer reviewed scientific theory which claims that life originated as a 'virus'.

Claim denied by previous paragraph. If you don't want to answer, be my guest. But then don't do it by pretending you're above it and my argument not worth it. In a forum, either you take the argument or you leave it. You have no authority to claim yourself above it, by not replying yet at the same time insisting that it is false.

Since that is clearly not possible, I put forward the likely idea that the author mis-understood the significance of the scientist Sol Spiegelman's experiments in the 1960's in which Spiegelman demonstrated that a virus can make use of free nucleotides in a controlled experiment. Spiegelman was not endeavouring to show that a 'virus' spawned through abiogenesis, but that a replicating entity (in his experiment a virus) could make use of free nucleotides. (Nucleotides are the base unit of RNA/DNA) Spiegelmans experiments were vital to understanding the effect of free nucleotides on simple organisms, but they have nothing at all to do with abiogenesis!

It's actually quite ironically funny, how you earlier on claimed that my writing was brazed, when in fact you are the one who by lack of shame sees no problem in assuming that my arguments "probably" come from a misunderstood unrelated subject. Perhaps in the future you'd be wise to ask for further clarification rather then jumping to conclusions.

Moving swiftly on, the author delves into the minutiae of what a self-replicating entity might look like.

Not; what it might look like; but rather what logic demands any plausible candidate to have.
I take it these statements are not by accident. You seem to posses the ability to belittle and mock your opponents views by slightly altering them. By misrepresenting them and deriving from them some inferior position. If you insist on pursuing this course of debate, then I won't take this conversation serious either. Instead then I'll focus in exposing you in it. So please, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop the condescending attitude; alright?

This is another potential strawman effort but allow me to explain. Firstly it is not necessarily the case that the initial self-replicating entity requires a 'container' in which to house itself. Cairn-Smith's theory of clay crystal replication has demonstrated that clay crystals can reproduce copies of themselves and undergo a primitive form of natural selection, if abiogenesis occurred in an inorganic molecule it is not neccessary to posit any sort of container at the point of abiogenesis because such a container/membrane may be arrived at through natural selection.

first of all, clay theory itself is not an abiogenistic hypothesis since it doesn't talk about inorganic molecules as you pointed out yourself. So your argument that as proven by clay theory a first link is possible without container is flawed, because clay theory doesn't deal with organic matter and thus isn't a representative indicator of what requirements organic matter should have. Also if you take clay theory further, and propose that at some point by attachment of genetic material it becomes organic, then that still doesn't contradict what I said, but actually confirms it. Your "container" is then the clay-crystal. Granted, that's somewhat of a lenient approach on the definition since it merely attaches molecules to its surface rather then containing them within. But it still forms the same basic function of keeping the necessary parts together. So in conclusion none of this actually contradicts anything I said.

Secondly, polynucleotides like RNA don't require a cell membrane as demonstrated in every laboratory that uses RNA strands in experiments. Nobody is suggesting that early replicators had the sophisticated mechanisms which are available to the modern cell or even more ancient types of cell!

I had already moved away from the RNA-world hypothesis. And was focussing on showing the problems of alternative theories. So your comment on poly-nucleotides is completely out of place here. Perhaps you should focus more on the thread of my writing, rather then randomly replying anything you can think of merely for the sake of it.

However, even if we assume organic abiogenesis required some form of membrane, and it were assumed that the first replicators required a 'container' (or membrane) then we need only look to the laboratory where such membranes have already been demonstrated to have arisen spontaneously in proteinoid microspheres. These microspheres have demonstrated not only a membrane, but also self-replication. There has not been a route verified whereby microspheres can mutate to the point of RNA/DNA, but the precedent that they set in having a membrane more than adequately deals with the copy/paste authors doubt that such a feature could arise spontaneously - because we have ample evidence that such a feature has arisen spontaneously in the laboratory.

Again you are the one making strawmen-arguments. I never said that the formation of these membranes is impossible. I merely pointed out that they need indeed be made, together with all the other required building blocks. I have never claimed that every single building block required for the most primitive cell is impossible. Some are impossible, some are possible but unlikely, and some are plausible. That all the required building blocks were all formed together, is of course impossible since some of them are impossible to have formed spontaneous. That I mention that next to these impossible-to-have-formed-blocks, there are also unlikely-to-have-formed and even likely-to-have-formed blocks is only because it adds to the difficulty abiogenesis is facing.

Whether this is a problem once again depends on what theory is examined. I point out that this isn't an insurmountable problem for any of the forerunning theories, but for some theories it requires more explanation than others. Again with inorganic abiogenesis the issue of metabolism (harvesting energy) doesn't require to be addressed at the moment of abiogenesis (self-replication) because catalysts from the environment provide the energy source. Again however, we do eventually have to explain metabolism and then it is feasible that metabolism existed among non-replicating organic compounds prior to the point of the replicators becoming organic. (i.e. the 'metabolism first' view of RNA World Theory.) A third possibility is that the problem was addressed during abiogenesis through autocatalysis, a chemical network similar to a chain reaction where chemicals react with one another producing different chemicals which then react with each other, ultimately providing the necessary energy to a molecule to sustain replication. Such an experiment has been verified to work by Rebek et al. None of these examples conflict with the laws of thermodynamics (i.e. entropy) as the author fears.

Again you show evidence of having lost the thread of my arguments. Replying things which are not related to the issue and argument I'm making. I was still continuing on refuting those who reject the RNA-world-hypothesis and insist that the first link was already a single-celled organism. And those do have to account for the problem of entropy and theorise how such a cell could harvest energy. whether or not I have fears have nothing to do with it, and I'll remind you again not to belittle my position by these mis-representations, and invite you again to drop this condescending attitude as it certainly doesn't smoothen the conversation.

This fact is true but could be construed as misleading. The author is correct that a replicator must pass on information to the next generation so that natural selection can do its work. Clay crystal theory achieves this without anything remotely resembling RNA, DNA or another nucleic acid and has been empirically demonstrated. (See Cairns-Smith 1985) However the author touches on a seperate but related subject unrelated to abiogenesis. No matter which theory of abiogenesis one examines the replicators must eventually have to develop an information carrier such as RNA/DNA. I don't pretend that science has a conclusive explanation as to how replication bridged the gap between straight self-replication and modern nucleotide based replication systems like RNA & DNA. However this isn't an insurmountable problem either, it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that nucleotides and amino acids can form spontaneously in an early earth reducing atmosphere, it has also been demonstrated that self-replication and natural selection can take place without RNA/DNA. The problem is bridging the gap, but main problem for scientists isn't that they don't have a few theoried as to how this bridge happened, but that there are so many possible millions of permutations by which the answer could have happened that the solution has yet to be discovered.

Again, evidence that you lost the thread of my arguments, I was still continuing on refuting the theory of a single-celled organism as a first link. Secondly, as I already mentioned clay theory is not abiogenesis, perhaps a preliminary. But insufficient to base a counterargument on. Especially not these kind of splitting-hairs counterarguments. My argument remains standing, namely that you need a carrier of information, even if for the sake of argument I grant you clay theory and abiogenesis following it, then from the moment there's genetic takeover, there indeed is a requirement of RNA or DNA. SO Clay theory doesn't contradict anything I mentioned here.

Finally then, of course a replicator needs to reproduce. However this problem could have been solved in innumerate ways, many of which have already been demonstrated. (Clay crystal theory demonstrates replication, as do proteinoid micro-spheres. See Wikipedia for related lists of self-replicating molecules.)

It is not the container, but the information-carrier which needs to be reproducible.

The author ultimately suggests nothing which renders abiogenesis 'impossible', and therefore without significant reason to believe abiogenesis is 'impossible' I refer to my original argument.

Well first off all, as I mentioned already it's not as much a matter of proving it is impossible, since there is currently no fully working theory, only loose incompatible and competing hypothesis each with their gaps. However if you wouldn't have been so hung up on refuting with the very first thing that pops in your head by association and completely loosing the thread of my argument you would have seen that I do point out something which renders abiogenesis implausible. There still isn't any theory on how genetic material could have spontaneously formed. This is a gap that all competing theories actually share! There is simply no known process trough which something so complex could have formed; at best speculation, and suggestive guesses; but no known chemical processes.

This again is an aside and unnecessary to this discussion, but on a technical level you are incorrect. You seem to be implying an Einsteinian version of determinism which is now accepted to be false. Everything is based on probability. Chaos Theory, Improbability Theory and Quantam Mechanics rule out the plausibility of a deterministic universe.

You don't seem to understand these theories in depth, as evident from your deduction. First of all it is logically impossible for a theory to rule out a deterministic universe. For any theory which appears to have chance-based processes in it, one can argue that there is an underlying deterministic cause which we fail to understand and which generates an apparently random pattern. Furthermore, the theories you mentioned don't contradict my statement in any way.

Chaos theory is the theory that micro phenomena can have a decisive effect on macro phenomena. As a classical example, whether a magnet hung from a piece of string decides to swing left or right, can at certain border-cases be influenced by small factors such as for example, the spin of the electrons inside the magnet. This theory does not show how on a chemical level, chance has anything to do with abiogenesis. At a chemical level, it is either possible or not possible. Probability doesn't come into the equation there. That isn't to say that chaos theory can't effect chemistry. Surely it can. But it can only do so, in making possible events more or less likely then normal to occur. They certainly can't make the impossible possible. Getting back to the analogy of the magnet. The spin of the electrons in the magnet might cause the magnet to swing left instead of right. But they can't cause it to do something outside the normal behaviour of a magnet hanging from a string; so they couldn't cause the magnet to suddenly jump up, and go for a sandwich around the corner for example.
Quantum theory does influence chemistry, and even if quantum theory appears to be random, nevertheless its influence to chemistry is not random! For example, the octet rule in chemistry comes from quantum mechanics, however the octet rule is constant and deterministic. Yes there are exceptions to it, but those exceptions are not due to the randomness of some aspects of quantum mechanics, but instead the exceptions are deterministic as well! So again, nothing in Quantum mechanics contradicts with what I claimed. At a chemical level, abiogenesis is either possible or impossible, and quantum mechanics doesn't change that.

Even if there were no scientific theories available which could explain abiogenesis, there would still be an applicable improbability of self-replication through sheer chance.

Not at all. Have you been reading to much hitch-hiker's guides? Improbability doesn't give us card-blanche for anything to happen. That is just blind faith you have, and has nothing to do with science. If you truly believe this then I guess the only difference between us, is that at least I recognise and acknowledge which part of my views are faith-based.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


what do you think akhi, should i tell him that it's you whose writing the responses? or would that look foolish that i'm just doing continuous copy and pastes?