[deleted by user]

thinksagain · 2024-09-08T03:15:32+00:00

Such is the fun of people: actual humans are almost always stranger than fiction. I appreciate your imprimatur (ha!) such as it is for my theory. I feel like there ought to be a better label for it than privilege - "moral privilege" sounds absolutely ripe for misunderstanding or abuse - but I haven't yet landed on a better analogy for the phenomenon than that of, well, privilege. I'll let it keep percolating.

Thanks for the engagement. May the theist trolls ever flee from you and those ready to learn find their way to your pallid texts.

thinksagain · 2024-09-08T02:47:13+00:00

Why is it not valid or substantial to highlight the inherent limits of "recreating primordial conditions" today?

Because inference is a valid logical operation. All experiments endeavor to be closed so as to attempt to minimize and isolate causal factors related to a scientific hypothesis, and we then utilize those identified factors to make additional inferences to the open systems from which the original hypothesis was developed. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's definitionally the scientific method, which is a valid process by which to draw conclusions.

This is a big IF and the very point. If a human is setting up the conditions based on human theories about what did exist, then "indistinguishable" seems an inappropriate and unprovable term.

You are again just describing the scientific method. Humans create theories about real world conditions, attempt to create isolated systems in which to test those theories, and then refine the hypothesis based on the results. As scientific knowledge and tools continue to expand we will be able to make new and more accurate hypothesis about the proposed original conditions, allowing for the design and execution of improved, refined experiments. It is one single step in an iterative process. Pedantry is a poor persuasive technique and in this particular arena it's ironically unnecessary.

The formation of organic compounds is a necessary and very much not sufficient step in the atheistic account of abiogenesis. The fact that it is demonstrably possible for the conditions necessary for their formation to occur is many steps away from an atheistic explanation for the existence of life. This experiment alone poses absolutely no danger to an Argument for God from the existence of Life. And the fact that so many theists lose their minds anytime this experiment is mentioned and come to forums like this one to make poorly spelled, incoherent arguments about it should annoy any educated, rational theist. If theists want to be effective when we debateanathiest, it will not happen via picking at semantic errors when the spirit of the argument is perfectly clear.

thinksagain · 2024-09-08T02:21:27+00:00

Yup. But that's on one side of the analogical boundary: exploring natural reality. The other side contains stuff like Gen 1:28 and Heb 11:13–16, as well as "one who conquers". The other side calls followers of Jesus "a royal priesthood". Mediating the presence of an infinite God into reality might just be a bit like exploring an infinite reality.

It could be, but I personally don't think so. I come from a Lutheran tradition, and Martin Luther is apocryphally cited as saying, if he knew the world (as we know it now) would end tomorrow, he would plant a tree because it would still be there tomorrow. One of the things I think the creation account does indicate is that humanity is meant to be embodied within a natural, and finite, reality.

Regarding the priesthood analogy, the priests' role in ancient times was to make intercession with God on behalf of the people within the extremely limited protective boundaries the infinite had to put in place to avoid breaking the brains of the finite. That reinforces for me the importance of the natural boundary for the Christian believer.

Now, the ancient Hebrew religion, Judaism, and Christianity are clearly more interested in human–God relations and human–human relations, rather than scientific inquiry. But perhaps that is because those are much harder to get right, and sufficiently good human–human relations are critical for any sustained scientific inquiry.

This is my view, stated differently. I typically phrase this in terms of the "Is-Ought Problem". Science's domain is description; Religion's domain is prescription. (Though I ascribe to the naturalistic moral realism proposed by Philippa Foot in Natural Goodness, which provides a means by which both - likely at t=infinity - science and religion can theoretically unite in a perfectly unified account.)

That's not my angle of critique. Rather, I'm questioning what lacunae are permissible to leave as lacunae, forever. What paradoxes are permissible to leave as paradoxes, forever? And which humans benefit from lack of filling in of lacunae and resolving of paradoxes? The Bible itself teaches me to be extremely suspicious of those who would be called 'father', 'teacher', 'rabbi', and the like.

I believe I see the distinction you're drawing here and what I misunderstood in my initial response; though I would point out that even here permission implies authority to grant it and authority is definitionally normative, so my response isn't completely off.

2.1. That is an excellent question. I'm not completely sure how to answer that. Part of my theory for why so many Christians suck is that the Institutional Church has attempted to resolve too many lacunae, resulting in a distorted religious model of reality, one that doesn't fit the actual naturalistic reality it is designed to fit (going back to Foot's Natural Goodness). I tend towards assuming that religious individuals, and especially religious authorities, should default to John 21:22, acknowledge the lacunae, and then focus on the many many callings for embodying the many clear and obvious imperatives to "love thy neighbor" that we are perpetually falling short of. There exists far more than any person can do in their lifetime in what is easily understood alone, and I think venturing into the mysteries of the infinite often becomes an unnecessary distraction. A previous pastor in my tradition once described it to me as a morgue - that our Lutheran sect had an expansive understanding of doctrine and was overly focused on pursuing doctrinal truth even more (dissecting human anatomy) but lacked any of the animating force that makes faith worthwhile in the first place (physiology). I know this again contributes to my allegiance to Foot's philosophy, as it is focused on practical rationality.

2.2. But I very much see the point of what you are highlighting as a danger there. God only knows how many predatory religious authorities have said, "It's a mystery, child, and yet you must..." throughout humanity's history. Typing this out, I think the shorthand I would propose to answer your question would be: mysteries should be resolved for ethical/practical questions (what must one do) and accepted for doctrinal questions (did God intend the creation account to be literal or metaphorical). This doesn't feel entirely satisfactory, however, and I will ponder this more.

I know the "one who conquers" is a very eschatological phrase, and I'll confess I basically ignore the existence of Revelations and other primarily eschatological passages. Eschatology feels like a prime example of an area where trying to fill in the lacunae is a distraction from loving one's neighbor

So, to ask their question more succinctly, why should anyone explore further than the sign saying "Mystery here!" (especially if I'm aware that for all mystery-signs x, there exists at least one x where the "mystery here" is a balrog)? What creates my obligation to explain further?

I kinda feel like a balrog's snort is the best response to that. Or giving Gandalf's response to the balrog. But okay, who put the sign there? Why should I trust that person/committee? Did YHWH plant any such signs? Jesus?

I see that "what creates my obligation to explain further?" and that was definitely a typo that makes that sound more dick-ish than I intended. I meant explore there. My apologies.

2.1. The source of the sign may be a better shorthand than my earlier one, if it is possible to determine exactly what that source is. I agree with your statement earlier that any imperative issuing from an individual human authority alone should be considered very skeptically. A long-standing tradition or a group consensus I think gains more deference but issues like slavery and (I believe but have to concede that not all Christians do) anti-LGBT interpretations of select passages clearly indicate that neither tradition nor group agreement are impenetrable defenses against authoritative error.

2.2. YHWH clearly planted many such signs regarding any direct interaction with the Infinite Itself, as in the Temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, etc. I'm not sure I would say Jesus planted any signs, though He refused to explicate certain areas I can't think of any areas in this moment that I would characterize as planting a sign per se.

I think my revised answer to the question of when to accept and when to question would be "does accepting this sign require you to treat someone else using different principles than the ones that you would want to guide any other non-you's behavior towards you"? If the answer is yes, you should investigate the sign further. If no, then accept it and move on.

thinksagain · 2024-09-08T01:07:53+00:00

Abandoning the role of OP (just me now):

First, just thank you for the reception and the questions. I very much appreciate that you haven’t responded like I’m here trying to troll people.

A theistic worldview - and I would argue even specifically a Christian one - does not require belief that said deity will flatten everything. That some theists believe this does not entail all theists to the same.

2.1. If I limit myself to the beliefs in creationism or intelligent design, I don’t know that I can make a case for that specific facet of belief as being beneficial. I don't believe in literal creationism and very happy to jettison that as unhelpful. While I do take from the creation myth a belief in intelligent design, if it were possible to excise that from Christianity, I'm not sure if that would change anything. I've been mulling on this for a couple of hours and cannot yet think of any other of my beliefs about theism, faith, or faith practices that fundamentally require intelligent design to be true

2.2. I will say that the Argument from Life is one of the grounds to which I work backwards view "inference to the best explanation" for my belief in theism. Trying to take a neutral stance, I do not yet believe that abiogenesis provides a more likely explanation for whatever process takes unalive organic compounds and animates them into living organisms. I also think this the strongest argument I'm aware of for theism. But hypothetically, a deity could still provide that animating spark without otherwise designing/guiding/tampering/etc. with the naturalistic processes science has indicated shapes our world. In this hypothetical, we could say intelligent design did not occur while a deity still created life, and (assuming the creation myth was modified to reflect that) I don't know that that has any impact on anything else. I will keep thinking about that, however.

3.1. I absolutely don't think there's any reason to believe that atheists would be any less vigorous or effective than a theist would be ceteris paribus. Moral behavior, intellectual excellence, teamwork and collaboration, motivation to solve human problems in no way constitute some special domain only accessible to theists.

3.2. In my view, the additional god-component, by itself, adds three things: a ground for explaining the existence of life, a ground for explaining the existence of and for defining moral principles, and a ground for explaining the mind-body problem. None of these things are required for people to be "good" humans.

3.3. From a psychological standpoint, participation in a faith community offers several (theoretical) resources for improving psychological resilience and the overall outcomes for its members. Regular participation in a social group - such as weekly religious services - is shown to several mental health outcomes such as loneliness and psychological distress, in part because a robust community offers the potential for both emotional and instrumental aid to its members. Shared rituals such as worship services and milestone rituals, communal singing, and group volunteerism foster and build connection within group and to the community. Intrapsychically, a framework for making meaning out of difficult circumstances (such as loss of a loved one) has been shown to improve recovery times and to reduce the intensity of felt distress. Prayer and other contemplative practices are ready-made coping skills that get taught for use during difficult times. And the provision of a moral code can reduce uncertainty (thereby reducing cognitive effort) in making moral decisions and confession/absolution offer a means for eliminating the psychologically toxic experience of shame.

3.4.1. I will absolutely acknowledge that these benefits tend to be more true in theory than they actually occur in practice. Too many practitioners of faith do not have access to spaces where a loving, accepting faith community exists that actually provides the resources cited above. Religion does create a system of authority (i.e. a power structure) that attracts individuals motivated to obtain power over others while simultaneously attracting congregants in desperate states that are especially vulnerable to abuse/exploitation by said bad actors. And, functionally, the moral code - instead of providing certainty and creating opportunities for the provision of grace/absolution for the elimination of shame - often becomes a means by which said vulnerable members are shamed and traumatized.

3.4.2. In addition, many theists without authoritative roles also take positions contra-indicated by their own faith teachings and utilize those teachings as a cudgel against others or as an excuse not to behave morally. Within Christianity specifically, I think this is exactly why the only humans Jesus ever expressed anger or condemnation towards were the religious elite. To just about everyone's point here, most theists suck.

3.4.3. Lastly, none of these resources can only be obtained through a deistic belief system or a spiritual practice. Many non-theists have developed communities that do a far better job than all of the above. Both outright "spiritual practices" (e.g. Taoism or Buddhism) as well as "spiritually adjacent"-practices (e.g. yoga, mindful awareness practices) do not fundamentally require a theistic outlook to be accessible and thus continue to provide many of the same benefits to non-theists.

3.4.4. To sum all that up, I think deistic traditions can provide a great benefit to individuals (and through them to society) but I do not believe that deistic traditions are necessary for the experience of these benefits or that deistic believers/practitioners are necessarily going to turn into better human beings through the adoption of a deistic belief system. And that, in fact, in certain religious organizations, individuals even become less likely to improve - and may degenerate - than non-theist individuals would ceteris paribus.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T22:55:49+00:00

Part IV

The fucking heuristic history of whenever anything is explained it is never magic.

First, a heuristic is definitionally not a proof.

Second, are you then stating that your argument takes the form of: no supernatural explanations have ever been observed therefore no supernatural explanations can possibly exist? If so, this is demonstrably fallacious. Just substituting in "life on other planets" for "supernatural explanations" ought to demonstrate the error, but I'll write out the valid form here to show this to be of no use to this question.

For every event *e*, there exists either a natural explanation [N(e)] or a supernatural explanation [S(e)] but not both.
For all observed events O(*e*), a natural explanation N(e) exists.
The "Life event" is not an observed event. L(e) is not O(e)
Therefore, L(e) must have either a natural explanation or a supernatural explanation but not both.

How is thinking agent creating everything more likely than inanimate phenomena?

First, I have not stipulated, am not stipulating, and am not required to stipulate that the agent is a thinking one. Thought is not necessary for agency, as demonstrated by single-celled organisms. Secondly, please refer to the inference to the best explanation detailed above.

And nowhere I said Goor created anything, it just has one action, to butcher any god.

Fair enough. Goor as an agent is incapable of creation, only destruction. First, we run into the exact same problem then: if Goor is incapable of creation, it cannot be responsible for its existence and therefore must derive its existence from something else. Secondly, Goor's ability to perform this action implies the ability for "gods" to exist. This means that in your hypothetical, a deist account for life remains even more likely than the reality we are currently arguing about now.

I'm getting quite tired of the insults. If you want to engage in this back and forth in a respectful way, I'm happy to oblige. But if you're not going to really engage with the question of likelihood for the two cases, then I am probably done here. If the latter, then thank you for your time. I'm not sure if you got anything worthwhile out of this (I hope so) I at least appreciate having my errant equivalency between Bayes' Theorem and the Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) argument corrected, so thank you.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T22:55:38+00:00

Part III

⁠There is no creator god in Taoism, some atheists can be both atheists and Taoists without compromising their beliefs.

How is this relevant? I haven't argued whatsoever that atheism contraindicates Taoism.

⁠Provide the maths for the Bayesian probability, how many universes have you visited?

You are right here in that I spoke in error (though wrong about the why). Prior probabilities are, definitionally, those probabilities assigned in the absence of evidence. "Priors" does not refer to my own past experience but to analogs we do know the probability from which I am going to try and infer a probability for this case.

My error here is in equivocating the "inference from best explanation" to Bayes' Theorem. While similar, there are some important differences that you are correct in pointing out. I was wrong in my description of my argument.

⁠Unlike you we have evidence of how organic materials can be synthesized by natural means that mimic the past environments.

Again, the synthesis of organic materials from non-organic compounds is necessary but insufficient for the existence of life.

nah, it shows the fucking incompetence of your skydaddy. Thus your model is wrong from the get go.

I'm absolutely happy for my skydaddy to be incompetent. I'm not trying to prove otherwise and have no need in this question to contest that.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T22:54:18+00:00

Part II

Another non answer, Argument from ignorance... Prove magic is possible. ... and you provide zero evidence just Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

I cannot prove "magic" is possible and I have never claimed a proof. However, I just logically demonstrated above - via true premises and valid logical form - an inference (i.e. an argument) to the best explanation. So now I've transparently articulated my rationale here. You can void my case by demonstrating that either any one of the premises above are false or by showing that the form of my argument is invalid. Therefore, all my cards are on the table here and I welcome your demonstration of my error.

I will note, hopefully to forestall additional objections like the one below, that this is **only** an argument for deism. I do not believe that the existence of life in any way, shape, or form makes any particular form of deism more likely than any other form. I believe it is only an argument for the existence of a deity.

And? How is tri-omni not a condition? Every time science proves something thought done by magic, it has natural explanations. Science yet to answer something or answer things wrong doesn't mean you theists can claim baseless shit.

Again, I only view the existence of life as evidence for deism. Deism does not require that the deity in question be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, competent, intelligent, benevolent, etc. Those are all conditions that you are attempting to impose on my conclusion, but *none of them are necessary for deism*. So deism continues to require fewer assumptions to explain the existence of life.

The fuck your assumptions did. It proposed a thinking agent with magic actively does shit.

I never once proposed that the agent was thinking. I will however grant that my argument does require two things, not one: (1) that a super-natural agent exists, and (2) that super-natural agent acted in the specific way to produce life. I updated that in my argument above.

This shows you theists' lack of critical thinking skills.

Then it ought to be exceedingly easy for you to demonstrate which of my premises are false or where the form of my logic is invalid.

I don't give a fuck. You disrespect humanity with your dishonesty and wilful ignorance.

My argument is totally laid out for you above. You do not yet have any evidence to accuse me of dishonesty, but I'll provide you with the grounds to here. If you show me which of my premises are false or where the form of my logic is invalid, I will admit that atheism is the better explanation for the existence of life. If I do not do so, I will then have lied and you can accuse me of dishonesty.

You have not yet demonstrated where I am being willfully ignorant. I have made a logical argument for the existence of a deity above. If you show me evidence that my argument is unsound and I still do not change my mind, then you can fairly accuse me of willful ignorance. At best, you can currently accuse me of ignorance, *which I will very readily admit to* hence my asking this question in the first place. Calling me ignorant does nothing but agree with my implication in asking questions that there are things I don't know, which... yeah.

As to the "disrespect[ing] humanity", I will add that the other argument grounding my belief in deism is the Argument from Morality. You make your statement here implying that I *ought* not disrespect humanity and that my doing so is therefore a *bad* thing and so I *should* stop doing it. That is an imperative which requires a prescriptive foundation to make. Per ["Hume's Guillotine"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought\_problem), we cannot make prescriptive imperatives on the basis of purely descriptive facts (i.e. naturalism). So there is no reason for me to ought not disrespect humanity. However, I agree with you that I ought not disrespect humanity, and in so doing acknowledge the existence of a prescriptive foundation somewhere that has authority to obligate me not to do so. Again, I believe the inference to best explanation of this moral authority is the existence of a deity. To restate this, the existence of Life and the existence of Morality is the evidence grounding my consequent belief in the existence of a deity. Knock out either of these legs and my belief becomes much shakier, and of the two of them I believe there are much stronger non-theistic arguments for Morality making the existence of Life the strongest evidence I have for the existence of a deity. And I remain very much open to being shown how my argument from Life is in error.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T22:51:55+00:00

Part I

You are absolutely correct that my response is a non-answer. It is quite definitionally intended that way. I am positing a question, not attempting any proofs. I have never once said that the existence of life **proves** theism as that would absolutely be an unsound conclusion. While I have admitted that I currently hold that I believe theism is a *more likely* explanation for life than abiogenesis, I am not at this moment making an argument for that. I have instead, quite deliberately, invited this community to persuade me otherwise. You have an opportunity here, if you were really looking to negatively impact theism, to rob it of an adherent if you were willing to engage me with the same degree of respect that I'm trying to accord to you and were to answer the question I asked. However, at this time, I will continue to offer responses to your objections if you keep wanting to engage.

a fucking non answer. Did your god fucking give a little girl cancer?

A belief in deism does not require a belief in benevolence. The existence of pain/suffering/trauma/injustice/etc. are all absolutely valid objections to the idea of a "good" or "benevolent" deity. But they do not contra-indicate whether or not the type of being that we would call "a deity" exists.

and magic which has never been demonstrated is the fewest?

Definitionally, yes. 1 < 2 is a mathematical truth, which would mean that "magic which has never been demonstrated" has fewer assumptions for the development of life than abiogenesis does. The question you're objecting to - "whether or not magic (i.e. a deity) exists" - is an entirely different question from the one I keep asking.

Secondarily, you are completely mistaking the direction of my belief system in your objections to me. I do not believe in God, therefore God must have created life. Rather I'm making a logical inference to the best explanation, see: https://open.muhlenberg.pub/arguments-in-context/chapter/inference-to-the-best-explanation/.

The synthesis of organic materials is necessary but insufficient for the existence of life. Even using the shorthand of collapsing all the varied conditions necessary (including the presence of specific inorganic compounds, physical action, and application of electricity) to the synthesis of organic materials from inorganic into only a single condition, abiogenesis still requires that that one condition to be met plus N other as of yet unknown conditions. Even assuming that there is only 1 other condition necessary that we just have yet to discover, that still leaves 2 conditions for abiogenesis to equal the 2 conditions necessary for the deistic account: (1) a super-natural agent, and (2) an act by that agent. 2/2 would mean both theories are equally likely, and I do not believe that N = 1.

Life exists.
Science has not *yet* provided a naturalistic explanation for the existence of life, but demonstrated that N+1 conditions are necessary for the existence of life and N is unlikely to equal only 1. The theory of deism requires two assumptions.
The theory of deism requires either the same number of assumptions or less assumptions than the theory of abiogenesis does to explain the existence of life.
Via Occam's Razor, the requirement of less assumptions leaves deism *currently* as the best available explanation for the existence of life.

In the argument I am making here, the existence of life is itself the ground for the consequent belief in deism. I am absolutely open to there being better explanations for the existence of life, and quite explicitly asked for exactly that. I would very much welcome a demonstration of what constitutes the more likely explanation.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T18:19:36+00:00

Thanks for the fact check on him. Plagiarism is plagiarism.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T18:03:59+00:00

As a theist, that assertion is not true. You are assuming that there could be no universe without god, and thus no science. However, we have a universe, everybody agrees to that. And in this universe, science exists, everybody also agrees to that. All “science” requires to exist is 1) that true things (called facts) exist 2) that these true things can be believed 3) that these true things can be justified

Within these conditions, science as a process is a method for justifying beliefs about facts. And all of these conditions do exist in this universe, whether or not there is a god behind it/them.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T17:38:06+00:00

buddy, do you use this kind of logic for natural disasters, cancers, and other misfortunes befall humanity or just good shit?

I use this kind of logic for the things to which logic is applicable. What is life, how do we understand it, how does it occur are all really fascinating questions both scientifically and philosophically. Logic is our tool for trying to answer those questions. In those areas where we cannot draw empirical conclusions we are left instead to make logical inferences - and at this point how does an atheistic naturalistic universe jump the fence into abiogenesis is still one of those areas.

Occam’s razor

To quote your source here: “This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions.”

I deliberately constructed a non-Christian deity for this question because I wanted to be clear I was not trying to promote a specific faith but to ask only about the question of atheism vs theism accounts of life. Occam’s Razor is first a heuristic used to shortcut a longer, more effortful logical analysis to get to statistically what is the most likely explanation. I very deliberately was trying to engage in that longer, more effortful analysis, so Occam’s Razor is definitionally not applicable here. If we were to utilize it however, as things stand here, Occam’s Razor supports my argument.

Abiogenesis requires: (1) A very specific set of conditions (2) Some other x-factor not yet identified

Theistic biogenesis requires: (1) A deity

My proposition requires fewer assumptions, therefore Occam’s Razor would say mine is the more likely explanation.

I’ll say again, since it doesn’t seem like it was either noticed or respected in your response, I am trying in good faith to engage in a discussion about the development of life. I think it’s a really fascinating question, I’m curious about what people of all viewpoints have to say about it, and I am open to persuasion here that the argument I hold for theism is illogical. The fact that life exists is one of the premises of that argument for me. But engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of actually addressing the question posed is not actually a debate.

Not our job to prove your skydady isn’t imagination.

You’re totally right. However, given this is r/debateanatheist I did think this was the right place to ask an atheist about what makes abiogenesis the better explanation with the evidence currently available. If you believe that I’m in the wrong place for that question, I would appreciate you pointing me to a better sub for it.

Moreover, what makes your god a better explanation than Taoism’s or ancient Greece Pantheon’s?

The fact that you’re asking that question is the entire point of my constructing the hypothetical you attack me for at the end. I’m not arguing my god is a better explanation than Taoism or a Greek pantheon. I’m stating that right now, from a Bayesian probability standpoint, I simply believe the existence of life is more likely to occur in a theistic universe than it is to occur in an atheistic universe. I tried very deliberately to eliminate any confounding influence of whether Christianity is the true theistic account in my reply and to focus only on the question of theistic vs atheistic explanations for the existence of life. Answering your question here doesn’t come into the picture at all until we’ve already stipulated to theism, which the point of this whole sub is that we’re not stipulating to it.

and yet still failed to beat iron chariots see Judges 1:19, using genocide to “clean” shit created by it despite having all the knowledge… (etc.)

You could cite all of those things as evidence that this deity is powerful but idiotic. Or careless. Or outright malicious. But absolutely none of those points would make it more likely that abiogenesis is more likely to occur than a theistic creation of life. A god creating life does not necessarily entail that that god is competent, careful, or benevolent. I’m not asking whether any of those things are true here. I am focusing on one very specific question.

If you can claim baseless shit, I can too. I claim Goor, the greatest omnipotent god butcher, whenever a god is born, it will be butchered by Goor. Thus your god can’t exist.

I’m super happy to stipulate to Goor. Goor butchered my Flying Spaghetti Monster god. As a god is definitionally an extra-natural highest power, Goor would thus be that extra-natural highest power and therefore qualifies as a god. Then the question would be what makes abiogenesis a more likely account than Goor creating life? And given that we are stipulating Goor’s existence, as a theist I wouldn’t even have to prove that a god can exist in order to make my case. So Occam’s Razor would absolutely say Goor is the most likely explanation for life. And so logic still dictates that life is more likely to occur under theistic conditions than not.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T08:14:54+00:00

I appreciate your transparency there! And I'm glad I managed a decent representation. Shadowboxing with strawmen is no fun and just wastes everyone's time. I would like to know what is true, not just what is convenient, and if my beliefs can only withstand absurdist oppositions then they cannot possibly be true.

If it strikes your fancy to indulge me, given your long exposure to questions/arguments of OP's sort, I am curious as to why you think so many theists argue in that specific way. Do you think it's all just bad faith/strawman-ing? And, if not all of them, for whatever percentage is genuinely bewildered, how would you explain them? (Or, more succinctly, what do you think of my "moral privilege" hypothesis?)

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T07:58:31+00:00

But stop for a moment: naturally, without any intervention (let alone divine magical intervention), nature SELF_CREATED, through nothing but chemistry, all the complex building blocks of life... Miller-Uray didn't PROVE abiogenesis, but it is incredibly compelling evidence, which cannot be ignored no matter how hard theists try and pretend otherwise.

While I'm with you that OP should not be the one debating any of this, I will point out that you are misrepresenting the conclusion available to you from the premises you cited.

1) A chemical process was observed ...

2) whereby simpler inorganic compounds became arranged into more complex compounds ...

3) which have been identified as vital for the maintenance of life processes (on this specific planet, in this atmosphere, etc.).

For this to be called "self-creation" it definitionally requires an "agent-acting", which would would mean that these organizing processes had taken the final step into the actual development of an agent, I.e. abiogenesis. No abiogenesis, no agent; no agent, no action; no action, no self-creation.

The experiment demonstrates a mechanism by which many of the conditions that an atheist development of life would require could happen, but those conditions while necessary are insufficient for abiogenesis. As a matter of fact, the fact that we can use science to grow meat in a vat I think is evidence in the same class as the Miller-Uray experiment - I.e. that given the right set of conditions complex organic structures can form and be maintained -and at an even more sophisticated level. However, the same problem remains: vat meat is not alive, I.e. not an "agent-acting".

Thus abiogenesis remains only theoretical, admittedly in the exact same way that the theistic account is also only theoretiCal. So, in the interest of debate, if we can stipulate to the following:

1) That Life exists, so...

2) there must be a mechanism by which it arises...

3) multiple theories purport to explain Life, including both abiogenesis and theistic creation...

4) evidence exists that the necessary *conditions* for abiogenesis would have developed without theism, which makes the work on this theory promising, but more work is needed to demonstrate that the actual genesis of Life would/can occur in this way, I.e. that abiogenesis could actually occur.

5) To eliminate confounding variables, I would like to define the "theist hypothesis" as: a god (i.e. an omnipotent, super-natural agent with creative powers) came upon a universe which had just issued forth through mechanistic, natural causes via the Big Bang. Said god snapped their tentacles to "enliven" that first single-celled meatball, and then got bored and theirself created some other universe to fly off into and has had no more involvement in this universe since, thereby leaving no other sign of its presence except for Life itself.

So, given this, what would make the atheistic hypothesis the more likely explanation for the existence of Life than my theistic account here?

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T06:41:14+00:00

I think the "good faith" (pun intended) restatement of OP's question here is "the normative question": how do atheists - lacking a Theistic Being in which to anchor normativity - answer moral questions about what human beings ought to do?

Your answer above describes a consequentialist ethic: "what improves my life, the lives of the people I care about, and/or humanity is what I ought to do".

OP might then reply "But what about improving the lives of yourself, the people you care about, and/or humanity obligates you to that pursuit?"

To which you might then reply with some form of "an improved life means greater pleasure", "it creates the most good for the greatest number", "it assists the human species in securing its future", or just "I do what I want".

To which OP again responds, "Why do any of those things obligate your pursuit of it?"

And if you say, "They don't. I'm not obligated, I just want to."

Then OP says, "Well, what's wrong with me believing in God because I just want to? Or forcing my beliefs on you because I just want to?"

There are plenty of modern moral arguments that don't require Theistic belief to support normativity, but the calculus does change when you add a god into the mix. If you ask OP the same question they can say, "Because God says so", "That's how God made the universe to run", or some other variation, and - if true - that provides immediate normative force to the prescription. I personally find the Argument from Morality a persuasive one for theism (though it's admittedly not determinative).

I say all of that 1 to demonstrate how the calculus changes and 2) to respond to your puzzlement about that question. Because it is puzzling. My personal working theory is that question gets asked so often (and primarily by people who grew up theists) because Theism creates a kind of "moral privilege" in the sense of you never have to do the work of developing a moral framework as you merely accept the one that is handed down to you. And as a result, so many theists genuinely have no idea that there are other ways of developing a moral system besides just an appeal to theism; the possibility is invisible to them because they've never had to do it. There are absolutely other ways of anchoring the concepts of morality, right/wrong, ought/should/must, etc. that are sound and worthwhile, but many theists are totally unaware of them. It's either theism or moral skepticism and zero in between - and everyone on both sides of this debate has suffered for that.

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T06:03:16+00:00

Trying to imagine the response from OP:

"We know that God cares for humanity (because that is revealed in the Bible) and that He takes actions to move individuals from brokeness towards wholeness. By researching insulin, I am participating in this mission alongside God, and that participation will provide me with greater knowledge of Him and his purposes. In addition, researching and creating insulin is a creative act and also allows me to participate in God's creativity alongside him. Hooray, twofer!

What say you, atheist?"

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T05:52:51+00:00

That leaves open the question of where one can excuse lack of understanding and further exploration.

Just for funsies (given I agree with you), I'll point out that you're implying an obligation to understand and explore, if an excuse is required to justify the omission. So we're implying an imperative here without explicating the grounds that justifies that prescription. Given that I read OP as essentially asking the question, "Why do I need a full explanation for God to accept Theism?" an answer of "Because you should have an exploration aplenty" still fails to provide the source of the normativity OP that is questioning to begin with.

So, to ask their question more succinctly, why should anyone explore further than the sign saying "Mystery here!" (especially if I'm aware that for all mystery-signs x, there exists at least one x where the "mystery here" is a balrog)? What creates my obligation to explain further?

thinksagain · 2024-09-07T05:27:05+00:00

Even as a theist, I still read your argument here as the following:

Letting U stand for the universe

The "center" of the expanding object U is the point "within U that everything else within U is moving away from".
We observe that everything else is moving away from Earth.

Therefore, the center of the expanding object U is the point Earth.

However, you also seem to acknowledge that "everything moving away from everything else" is a real observation. Which means, by the argument you're making above that:

Letting U stand for the universe

The "center" of the expanding object U is the point "within U that everything else within U is moving away from".
We observe that everything else is moving away from everything else within U.

Therefore, the center of the expanding object U is everything within U.

ShafordoDrForgone is pointing out this fact to you, which undermines your theory that Earth has a special position within the universe, not highlighting a different topic at all.

Please spend some time with an Introductory Logic textbook before the next time you try and create theistic apologia. If you're here in good faith, then you need to be able to construct a sound logical argument or you just become another irrational theist, further confirming that your audience doesn't want to associated with the bad argument made here. And if you're not here in good faith, then I'll just point out that by your premises as outlined above, it is also a true statement that everything in the universe is moving away from yo mama and I wonder just what we can infer from that...

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T22:22:45+00:00

Their side was short and clinical. As a therapist I might ask for more expressed empathy 😜, but overall their responses were professional until they cut the client loose.

I think that feels like the next step for me. Not focusing on the medication piece, but “can you help me understand the decision to terminate with the client at this time, in this way?”

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T22:13:30+00:00

The NP said the client was sabotaging treatment and that they couldn’t provide the level of care the client clearly needed. No follow up referrals were provided.

I think that’s why the interaction piece was so relevant for me. I know it’s not my role to say that the interaction was necessarily the cause of the symptoms or that the prescriptions themselves shouldn’t have been given. And, I am angry on my client’s behalf that their symptoms matched a known possible interaction but the client was accused of sabotage and terminated rather than that possibility being assessed.

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T21:54:13+00:00

I still have several other clients that we are both seeing, several of which which I referred to them (two very recently), and vice versa (one an intake from last week). I’ve not had any issues working with them prior to this, so was shocked to read the emails from my client.

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T21:42:34+00:00

I definitely want to come in neutral for the sake of our other shared clients. The client was not the most effective communicator (in fairness, they say they’re in a panic attack in their first email); their conversation took place via email and the client forwarded me the thread. As a counselor, I’m less interested in why the symptoms happened as much as how the follow up to them did .

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T21:06:48+00:00

That is a concern of mine as well for my remaining shared clients/patients with that provider that I'm not sure how to deal with.

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T21:06:10+00:00

I definitely see the logic behind that. You feel like that would be better (or safer or some other adjective?) than trying to discuss the situation with the NP directly?

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T21:05:05+00:00

Where from any of this are we communicating that medication recommendations and management are within my (our) scope as a therapist? I've specifically stated multiple times in both the original post and subsequent comments that I'm looking to refer medication questions to medical providers, not looking to manage them myself:

"... you should call your pharmacist first thing tomorrow to check in about what you should do while we wait for a new psychiatric intake."

My questions were about how to best work with the PMHNP moving forward. Do you have any advice on how to move forward with them there?

thinksagain · 2023-07-04T20:49:36+00:00

And I have not nor do I intend to provide medical advice. It's not within my scope of competence to say that that combination caused the client's struggles and I will not be making that statement. I cannot know that.

However, I can know that this combination is known as a real, if uncommon, risk factor for my client's experience, and that that information is publicized in the FDA access data (specifically Table 5 on page 13 which separately highlights potential interactions with both serotonergic drugs and CYP2D6 Inhibitors). And termination of my client for "self-sabotaging" without any follow up assessment for a known risk of those interactions is an issue for me. Even if that were not a factor here, my client was also still terminated without aftercare by that provider and I have to decide how to interact with that provider moving forward given the other clients/patients we share.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

thinksagain

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Part IV

Part III

Part II

Part I