The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism

[orogenicman]

Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492



And again, no they have not.

Don't get me wrong; I think one day we will be able to do this. I do not think it is something that is 'magical' nor was it a miracle at life's inception.

I just think it is an enormously complex process that we wont divine for another century, frankly.

But if and when that happens it will be intelligence that does it. As for the notion that life to not begin by a supernatural creative event, i.e., "miracle": that implies that life can arise in the first place via strictly natural processes and mechanisms. Sorry, but the research resoundingly disputes that pipedream. Do you mean something else by that term.

Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But if and when that happens it will be intelligence that does it. As for the notion that life to not begin by a supernatural creative event, i.e., "miracle": that implies that life can arise in the first place via strictly natural processes and mechanisms. Sorry, but the research resoundingly disputes that pipedream. Do you mean something else by that term.

Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

Commonsense. But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong. If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.

Pasteur's maxim stands: Life comes from life.

 

[orogenicman]

Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

Commonsense. But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong. If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.

Pasteur's maxim stands: Life comes from life.

Common sense says that if I can't see something, it likely doesn't exist. And yet there are many things we cannot see that do exist. So sorry, this universe isn't as straight forward as you would have us believe.

If you want to read something about abiogenesis research, a good place to start would be here:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or here:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Abiogenesis-Life-Began-Origins-Search-ebook/dp/B005FY5ZAG]Amazon.com: Abiogenesis: How Life Began. The Origins and Search for Life eBook: Edward Trifonov, Nick Lane, Stephen Freeland , Michael Russell: Kindle Store[/ame]

 

[JimBowie1958]

But if and when that happens it will be intelligence that does it. As for the notion that life to not begin by a supernatural creative event, i.e., "miracle": that implies that life can arise in the first place via strictly natural processes and mechanisms. Sorry, but the research resoundingly disputes that pipedream. Do you mean something else by that term.

Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

You answer few of my questions, so why should I answer yours?

I have stated my reasons repeatedly, and I cannot be faulted for you acting like a retarded jack ass who cant grasp simple notions, like the ratio of support function to primary function in any designed system.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

Commonsense.

And Fine Tuning, and the fact that the Big Bang was described poetically in scripture thousands of years ago and the author of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest who was using Einstein's new theories to describe the Biblical Creation using science; and he nailed it right.

But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong. If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.

Pasteur's maxim stands: Life comes from life.

Oro is not interested in discussion, but only in obfuscation and trolling.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

Commonsense. But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong. If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.

Pasteur's maxim stands: Life comes from life.

Common sense says that if I can't see something, it likely doesn't exist.

No, it does not. Most things that exist cannot be seen by us due to distance, etc.

You think like a child you supposes that if he closes his eyes the big bad monster goes away.

And yet there are many things we cannot see that do exist. So sorry, this universe isn't as straight forward as you would have us believe.

You bring up an entirely unrelated subject to prove a different subject?

lol, your stupidity is growing daily.

 

[orogenicman]

Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

You answer few of my questions, so why should I answer yours?

I have stated my reasons repeatedly, and I cannot be faulted for you acting like a retarded jack ass who cant grasp simple notions, like the ratio of support function to primary function in any designed system.

I am quite surprised that you think that "God did it" is a simple notion, particularly as no one has ever shown:

1) That he exists in the first place;

2) much less demonstrated that he "did it";

3) or how;

4) or why.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

Actually, I think it is YOU who don't [sic] know what I am talking about. How is what I posted "off on a tangent". I responded directly to what you posted, did I not? I put no words in your mouth. I asked you a question, which, by the way,. you failed to answer. You said that abiogenesis was wrong, which implies that it is a waste of time and resources.

Not so. I answered your question. You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. That's clear. Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering. We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.

17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis

All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis

polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.

methane (CH4),

methanol (CH3OH),

formaldehyde (HCHO),

cyanoacetylene (HC3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to the pyrimidine cytosine).

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Inorganic building blocks such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

Cytosine
Guanine

These can form under conditions simulating the early Earth, and have been found ion asteroids and the last one has been found in stellar nebulae.

Ah! I missed this. So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?

Good!

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth. More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like.

Let's start here:

"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"

1. And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?

 

[orogenicman]

Your article? You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."? That article? Blah, blah, blah.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your article? You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."? That article? Blah, blah, blah.

Yep. That's the one with that very statement, the truth of which you're proving right now. It's also the article that answers all the questions I've asked you.

Now let's get back to the substance:

You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

Actually, I think it is YOU who don't [sic] know what I am talking about. How is what I posted "off on a tangent". I responded directly to what you posted, did I not? I put no words in your mouth. I asked you a question, which, by the way,. you failed to answer. You said that abiogenesis was wrong, which implies that it is a waste of time and resources.

Not so. I answered your question. You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. That's clear. Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering. We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.

17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis

All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis

polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.

methane (CH4),

methanol (CH3OH),

formaldehyde (HCHO),

cyanoacetylene (HC3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to the pyrimidine cytosine).

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Inorganic building blocks such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

Cytosine
Guanine

These can form under conditions simulating the early Earth, and have been found ion asteroids and the last one has been found in stellar nebulae.

Ah! I missed this. So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?

Good!

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth. More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like.

Let's start here:

"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"

1. And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?

 

[Hollie]

Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

Commonsense. But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong. If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.

Pasteur's maxim stands: Life comes from life.

"Commonsense"?

How silly.

Religious faith falls under the general heading of “feeling” or “spiritual” based doctrine. Genesis – to pick an example, is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence. This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim. You may “feel” that miracles as depicted in the Bibles are true and inerrant, but I challenge you to provide evidence for any of it. In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

 

[rdean]

Pat Robertson said creationists are "clowns". Pat Robertson.

 

[orogenicman]

Your article? You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."? That article? Blah, blah, blah.

Yep. That's the one with that very statement, the truth of which you're proving right now. It's also the article that answers all the questions I've asked you.

Now let's get back to the substance:

Actually, I think it is YOU who don't [sic] know what I am talking about. How is what I posted "off on a tangent". I responded directly to what you posted, did I not? I put no words in your mouth. I asked you a question, which, by the way,. you failed to answer. You said that abiogenesis was wrong, which implies that it is a waste of time and resources.

Not so. I answered your question. You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. That's clear. Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering. We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.

17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis

All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis

polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.

methane (CH4),

methanol (CH3OH),

formaldehyde (HCHO),

cyanoacetylene (HC3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to the pyrimidine cytosine).

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Inorganic building blocks such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

Cytosine
Guanine

These can form under conditions simulating the early Earth, and have been found ion asteroids and the last one has been found in stellar nebulae.

Ah! I missed this. So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?

Good!

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth. More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like.

Let's start here:

"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"

1. And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?

So to summarize, the link you would insist that we read is the same one that insults atheists, and makes the same old tired creationist claims that you crackpots have been making for going on a century. And of course I (a professional geologist) am supposed to sit with a straight face and watch you make a fool out of yourself with such comments as "You still have no idea what I'm talking about." Actually, I do, but that is only because I also have had a lot of training in psychology, and almost always recognize a nut case when I see one. Congratulations. Now take your meds and go to bed.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your article? You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."? That article? Blah, blah, blah.

Yep. That's the one with that very statement, the truth of which you're proving right now. It's also the article that answers all the questions I've asked you.

Now let's get back to the substance:



Not so. I answered your question. You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. That's clear. Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering. We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.

17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis

All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis

polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.

methane (CH4),

methanol (CH3OH),

formaldehyde (HCHO),

cyanoacetylene (HC3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to the pyrimidine cytosine).

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Inorganic building blocks such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

Cytosine
Guanine

These can form under conditions simulating the early Earth, and have been found ion asteroids and the last one has been found in stellar nebulae.

Ah! I missed this. So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?

Good!

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth. More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like.

Let's start here:

"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"

1. And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?

So to summarize, the link you would insist that we read is the same one that insults atheists, and makes the same old tired creationist claims that you crackpots have been making for going on a century. And of course I (a professional geologist) am supposed to sit with a straight face and watch you make a fool out of yourself with such comments as "You still have no idea what I'm talking about." Actually, I do, but that is only because I also have had a lot of training in psychology, and almost always recognize a nut case when I see one. Congratulations. Now take your meds and go to bed.

I would insist that you stop making crap up about something you know next to nothing about.

You're a phony is what you are or the stupidest geologist I've ever run across. My article is based on the peer reviewed research, and you haven't read it. JimBowie knows the science; I know the science. But everything out of your mouth is pseudoscientific claptrap.

Answer the questions, you fraud:

1. How many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?


I'm talking about the science. What are you punks talking about?

Cite from my article. Show me where I'm wrong.

*crickets chirping*

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism by Michael David Rawlings

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Bibliography:

John W. Kimball (Dec. 20, 2010). "The Origin of Life". Kimball's Biology Pages.

Stephen K. Ritter (Oct. 16, 2008). "Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited". Chemical and Engineering News: Prebiotic Chemistry.

Tony Fitzpatrick (Sep. 8, 2005). "Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth: Was Miller-Urey experiment correct?". Washington University in St. Louis: Newsroom.

Nancy Neal-Jones and Bill Steigerwald (Dec. 16, 2010). "Building blocks of life created in 'Impossible' place". Physorg.com: Space and Earth, Space Exploration.

Nancy Atkinson (Jan. 18, 2011). "More Asteroids Could Have Made Life’s Ingredients". Universe Today.

Anne M. Rosenthal (Feb. 12, 2003). "Murchison’s Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?". Astrobiology Magazine.

Elie Dolgin (March 16, 2009). "Did lefty molecules seed life?". Faculty of 1000, Post-Publication Peer Review: TheScientist.

Daniel P. Glavin and Jason P Dworkin (Jan. 23, 2009). "Enrichment of the amino acid L-isovaline by aqueous alteration on CI and CM meteorite parent bodies" (ABSTRACT). PNAS: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center.

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy (April 29, 1982). "Distribution and enantiomeric composition of amino acids in the Murchison meteorite". Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona. Nature Publishing Group: Letters to Nature (296, pgs. 837-840).

Michael. H. Engel and S. A. Macko (Sep. 18, 1997). "Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite". School of Geology and Geophysics, The University of Oklahoma; Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia. Nature: Letters to Nature (389, pgs. 265-268).

Jeffrey L. Bada, John R. Cronin, Ming-Shan Ho, Keith A. Kvenvolden, James G. Lawless, Stanley L. Miller, J. Oro and Spencer Steinberg (Feb. 10, 1983). "On the reported optical activity of amino acids in the Murchison meteorite". Amino Acid Dating Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Department of Chemistry and Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona State University; US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California; Ames Research Center, NASA; Department of Chemistry, University of California; Department of Biophysical Sciences, University of Houston. Nature Publishing Group: Letters to Nature (301, pgs. 494-496).

J. R. Cronin and S. Pizzarello (Feb. 14, 1997). "Enantiomeric excesses in meteoritic amino acids". Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University. Science; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (275, 5302, pgs. 951-955).

S. Pizzarello and J. R. Cronin (Feb. 4, 1999; revised June 28, 1999). "Non-racemic amino acids in the Murray and Murchison meteorites". Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (Vol. 64, Issue 2, pgs. 329-338).

Anne M. Rosenthal (Feb. 12, 2003). "Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?". Astrobiology Magazine.

Kate Melville (Jan. 20, 2011). "More evidence for asteroids creating life on Earth". Science A Go Go.

F Cataldo1, J R Brucato and Y Kahayan (Jan. 2005). "Chirality in prebiotic molecules and the phenomenon of photo- and radioracemization." Soc. Lupi Chemical Research Institute, Via Casilina, Rome, Italy; INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico Capodimonte, Napoli, Italy; Istituto per lo studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati, CNR, Rome, Italy. IOP Science: Journal of Physics, Conference Series (6, 139).

Maggie McKee (Aug. 17, 2009). "Found: first amino acid on comet". NewScientist: Space.

"Amino Acids could be produced within impacting comets, bringing life to earth". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Public Affairs (Sep. 12, 2010).

Aqueous ammonium cyanide is a liquid compound derived from a heated mixture of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia hydroxide (ammonia-water): HCN + NH3(aq) gives NH4CN(aq). —Michael David Rawlings

Joan Oró (Sep. 16, 1961). “Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions". Chemistry Department University of Houston. Nature: Letters to Nature (191, pgs. 1193-1194).

Matthew Levy, Stanley L. Miller and John Oró (Mar. 31, 1999). “Production of Guanine from NH4CN Polymerizations”. SpringerLink: Journal of Molecular Evolution (Vol. 49, No. 2, pgs. 165-168).

Sanchez RA, Ferris JP and Orgel LE (Nov. 11, 1966). "Cyanoacetylene in prebiotic synthesis". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. Science; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (154, 750, pgs. 784-785).

Sanchez RA, Ferris JP and Orgel LE (Dec. 14, 1967). "Studies in prebiotic synthesis: II. Synthesis of purine precursors and amino acids from aqueous hydrogen cyanide". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. Journal of Molecular Biology; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (30, 2, pgs. 223-253).

James P. Ferris, Robert A. Sanchez and Leslie E. Orgel (May 14, 1968). "Studies in periodic synthesis: III. Synthesis of pyrimidines from cyanoacetylene and cyanate". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. ScienceDirect: Journal of Molecular Biology (Vol. 33, Issue 3, pgs. 693-704).

César Menor-Salván Dr., Dra. Marta Ruiz-Bermejo, Marcelo I. Guzmán Dr., Susana Osuna-Esteban, Sabino Veintemillas-Verdaguer Dr. (Mar. 13, 2009). "Synthesis of Pyrimidines and Triazines in Ice: Implications for the Prebiotic Chemistry of Nucleobases" (ABSTRACT). Centro de Astrobiología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial, Carretera Torrejón-Ajalvir, Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain. Wiley Online Library: Chemistry, A European Journal (Vol. 15; Issue 17; pgs. 4411-4418; April 20, 2009).

Michael P. Robertson and Stanley L. Miller (29 June 1995). "An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil". Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California. Nature Publishing Group: Letters to Nature (375, pgs. 772-774).

"Did life begin with a meteorite? Scientists discover genetic ingredient for creation of man on rock from space". The Independent: Science (June 18, 2008).

Zita Martins, Oliver Botta, Marilyn L. Fogel, Mark A. Sephton, Daniel P. Glavin, Jonathan S. Watson, Jason P. Dworkin, Alan W. Schwartz, Pascale Ehrenfreund (June 15, 2008). "Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison Meteorite". Cornell University Library: Earth and Planetary Science Letters (270, pgs. 130-136).

James P. Ferris, Robert A. Sanchez and Leslie E. Orgel (May 14, 1968). "Studies in periodic synthesis: III. Synthesis of pyrimidines from cyanoacetylene and cyanate". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. ScienceDirect: Journal of Molecular Biology (Vol. 33, Issue 3, pgs. 693-704).

Francois Raulin, Suzanne Bloch and Gerard Toupance (April 1977). "Addition reactions of malonic nitriles with alkanethiol in aqueous solution". SpringerLink: Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres (Vol. 8, No. 3, pgs. 247-257).

Robert Shapiro (April 13, 1999). "Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Vol. 96, No. 8, pgs. 4396-4401).

Edward R. Garrett and Josef Tsau (July 1972). "Solvolyses of cytosine and cytidine". Wiley Online Library: Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Vol. 61, Issue 7, pgs. 1052-1061).

Robert Shapiro and Robert S. Klein (July 1966). "The Deamination of Cytidine and Cytosine by Acidic Buffer Solutions, Mutagenic Implications". ACS Publications: Biochemistry (5, 7, pgs. 2358-2362).

Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller (July 7, 1998). "The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life" (ABSTRACT, FULL PAPER). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Vol. 95, No. 14, pgs. 7933-7938).

Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller. "The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life".

Shapiro R. (June 25, 1995). "The prebiotic role of adenine: a critical analysis." Department of Chemistry, New York University. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (1-3, pgs. 83-98).

The most interesting of the postulated pre-RNA polymers are pyranosly RNA (pRNA). —Michael David Rawlings

Robert Shapiro (1988). "Prebiotic ribose synthesis: A critical analysis". SpringerLink: Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres (Vol. 18, Nos. 1-2, pgs. 71-85).

Robert Shapiro (Mar. 2000). "A replicator was not involved in the origin of life." Department of Chemistry, New York University. IUBMB Life; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (49, 3, pgs. 173-176).

"How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time". ScienceDaily: Science News (Jan. 10, 2009).

Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce (Jan. 8, 2009). "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme". Department of Chemistry, Department of Molecular Biology and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology of The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA. AAAS: Science (Feb. 27, 2009; Vol. 323; No. 5918; pgs. 1229-1232).

"Scientists Create Tiny RNA Molecule With Big Implications for Life's Origins". ScienceDaily: Science News (Feb. 24, 2010).

Rebecca M. Turka, Nataliya V. Chumachenkob and Michael Yarusa (Jan. 27, 2010). “Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribosome”. Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Feb. 22, 2010).

"Venter Institute Scientists Create First Synthetic Bacterial Genome: Team Completes Second Step in Three Step Process to Create Synthetic Organism". J Craig Venter Institute (Jan. 24, 2008).

Daniel G. Gibson, Gwynedd A. Benders, Cynthia Andrews-Pfannkoch, Evgeniya A. Denisova, Holly Baden-Tillson, Jayshree Zaveri, Timothy B. Stockwell, Anushka Brownley, David W. Thomas, Mikkel A. Algire, Chuck Merryman, Lei Young, Vladimir N. Noskov, John I. Glass, J. Craig Venter, Clyde A. Hutchison III and Hamilton O. Smith (Jan. 24, 2008). “Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome”. The J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD. AAAS: Science (Feb. 28, 2008; Vol. 319; No. 5867; pgs. 1215-1220).

"First Self-Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researchers". J Craig Venter Institute (May, 20, 2010).

Gordon C. Mills and Dean Kenyon (1996). "The RNA World: A Critique". Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of Texas Medical Branch; Department of Biology, San Francisco State University. Access Research Network: Origins and Design Archives (Vol. 17, No. 1).

Gordon C. Mills and Dean Kenyon (1996). "What do Ribozyme Engineering Experiments Really Tell Us About the Origin of Life?". Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of Texas Medical Branch; Department of Biology, San Francisco State University. Access Research Network: Origins and Design Archives (Vol. 17, No. 1).

Brian Thomas, M.S. (Feb. 2010). "Critique of 'Primordial Soup' Vindicates Creation Research". The Institute of Creation Research.

 

[orogenicman]

Almost none of which supports creationism, despite what you would have the blatantly naïve believe., And sonny boy, ICR is not a scientific institution, and doesn't produce peer reviewed scientific papers.

But let's talk about you for a moment, shall we?

Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

Christians are notorious for having hurt feelings when their god-belief claims are not accepted as the truths they affirm on their mere say so. Their feelings are hurt even more when their “arguments” are exposed as the silly collections of incoherence that they are. But in spite of their hurt feelings, some Christians keep coming back for more punishment, pushing the same nonsense like a dog coming back to its own vomit, apparently expecting that his next iteration of the same nonsense, perhaps in a new guise, will somehow slide under the radar of philosophical detection. I have bad news for the believer: it won’t.

Christian apologist Michael David Rawlings is no exception to this frequently encountered quagmire. He has come posting on my blog under the guise of wanting to learn about Objectivism and peddling a highfalutin perspective on Christianity backed up by “credentials” which he never specifies. His pockets are loaded to bear with reality-denying assumptions and ten-cent theological jargon to give the impression that he has the answer to the age-old question, “Where’s the beef?” In practice, Michael Rawlings doesn’t even really try to back up his assertions. On the contrary, he simply gets furiously angry when others don’t accept what he says on his mere say so. And this is a guy who says that Christianity does not affirm the primacy of consciousness when human consciousness is involved.

As the discussion has moved along, Michael has made less and less effort to contain his contempt and keep his bad attitude at bay. He has no qualms expressing his spite for atheists. On 7 Dec. he wrote:

Atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, you know, and dishonest too boot. After all, atheism is a form of psychopathy.
​

I’m immediately reminded of several points Cohen makes in his expose of the Christian devotional program’s second device, “Discrediting ‘The World’”:

For the believer, there are three kinds of people, and the devotional program prescribes a clear-cut mode of conduct toward each. There are: (1) ordinary unbelievers, (2) believers, and (3) missionaries of a conflicting or competing “false” gospel. The Bible presupposes relatively little depth of contact between believers and ordinary unbelievers. The objects of evangelism, unbelievers are often referred to collectively as “crops” of various kinds to be “harvested,” or “fish” to be “netted.” Precious little is said on handling contacts with them. One very crucial specific instruction on evangelization is given by Jesus to the apostles: “And whosever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.” [Luke 9:5] The context of the instruction indicates peripatetic movement of the apostles from one place to another, spending little time in one place. Abundant numbers of evangelistic contacts, not depth, are being mandated. If one does not get an immediate positive response, one is not to persist. When the believer is in the presence of an unbeliever, it is to preach and “witness,” not to listen. (The Mind of the Bible-Believer, pp. 172-173)
​

Note this last statement: “When the believer is in the presence of an unbeliever, it is to preach and “witness,” not to listen.” This may go a long way in explaining why Michael never seems quite able to integrate the points I have presented into his understanding of what is being discussed.

On a related note, Cohen points out the following:

The substance of the nonbiblical view confronting the believer becomes completely irrelevant. Inasmuch as all merely human views are inherently defective, the argumentum ad hominem becomes a fair argument, and the blow is softened by that argument’s equal validity and “impartial” applicability against all, including the Christian if he weakens and lets his thinking stray outside biblical premises. Critical thinking about human affairs is simply despaired of as futile. While the Bible does not explicitly say that independent thinking is the cardinal sin – to do so would give away the game – … it is the crux of any biblically authentic definition of sin. (Ibid., p. 179)
​

So while Michael has made certain verbal gestures to the effect that he’s interested to learn more about certain aspects of Objectivism, a “nonbiblical view confronting” him, his actions speak louder than this. Throughout the following expose, we will see numerous instances where Michael rams his head against the unshakable principles of Objectivism while ever failing to come to grips with their implications in regard to Christian god-belief.


Christianity and Its Adherence to Metaphysical Subjectivism

Central to much of my discussion with Michael David Rawlings is the issue of metaphysical primacy, i.e., the relationship between the subject of consciousness and any objects it is said to be conscious of. While this is the most fundamental issue in philosophy (since philosophy is the attempt to provide a comprehensive view of life and reality, and necessarily involves consciousness, and therefore its objects; in his book Ayn Rand’s Theory of Knowledge, Porter writes: “I think the primacy of existence is the most important issue in philosophy” – p. 198), it is never addressed in any self-conscious manner anywhere in the Christian bible. And it is not something you’ll find commonly addressed in theological and apologetic texts. As I pointed out in a comment to the previous blog, “We don’t see Christians saying, ‘Hey, that’s got to be false since it contradicts the primacy of existence’.” And we certainly do not see this anywhere in the Christian bible.

So when the issue of metaphysical primacy is raised in objection to Christianity, we can expect a mixture of confusion and hostility on the part of the Christian attempting to defend his mystical worldview from this type of criticism. It cuts to the very foundation of any worldview, and it quickly exposes a number of fundamental inconsistencies lurking in the believer’s worldview. It gets even messier when another Christian steps in and makes pronouncements underscoring the presence of previously undetected inconsistencies inherent in the theistic view of the world.

Michael asks: “Where does the Objectivist get the idea that existence has primacy over consciousness?”

The answer is simple: We get it from reality, by observing reality, by identifying what we observe, by grasping the nature of the subject-object relationship. We certainly do not get it from the bible. The bible nowhere affirms the primacy of existence, even in the case of human consciousness (contrary to assertions made by Michael himself, as we will see below); on the contrary, the Christian bible repeatedly and emphatically affirms the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness affirms the metaphysical primacy of the subject of consciousness over its objects. This is known as metaphysical subjectivism, since it holds that the objects of consciousness conform in some way to the subject of consciousness. The alternative to this is metaphysical objectivism, i.e., the consistent and explicit recognition of the fundamental fact that the objects of consciousness exist and are what they are independent of the conscious activity by which the subject is conscious of them. Hence, Objectivism, the Philosophy of Reason.

Examples of metaphysical subjectivism in the bible are abundant, and include the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of divine sovereignty (everything in the universe conforms in terms of identity and action to the will of the supernatural ruling consciousness), the doctrine of miracles, the doctrine of salvation through faith (belief and confession, as opposed to “works,” lead to “spiritual cleansing”), the doctrine of prayer, the doctrines of angels and demons, and many, many more.

Michael has made statements to the effect that such “power over existence” is reserved only for Christianity’s god. He states “Nowhere in scripture is it asserted that a finite mind (subject) can have primacy over an existent (object),” where “finite mind” is supposed to denote human consciousness as well as the consciousnesses imagined by Christians to belong to demons and angels. Presumably it also denotes the conscious faculties possessed by non-human animals, like dogs, cats, elk, weasels, ladybugs, etc.

Unfortunately, Michael offers no biblical citations which make any explicitly statement about the orientation between consciousness and its objects, particularly with regard to human consciousness; its authors will only strike those informed on the matter as utterly oblivious to it. Indeed, one gets the impression that Michael has not examined the content of the Christian bible now that he has become at least somewhat familiar with the issue of metaphysical primacy. Meanwhile, certain passages in the New Testament attributing the cause of diseases to demons, for instance, are a clear-cut case of affirming metaphysical subjectivism on the part of consciousnesses other than the Christian god itself.

Then of course there’s Matthew 17:20, which puts the following statement into Jesus’ mouth:

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
​

I have pointed this passage out to Michael at least twice now, but in spite of his volumes of contemptuous screed, he has not addressed it. Going by his statements alone, one might never suspect that I ever referenced it. And yet, it provides explicit evidence contrary to his own affirmation regarding the human mind, the primacy of consciousness, and what the bible states.

Other examples would include Peter walking on water by merely believing that he can (here the physics of relative density between the human body and a body of water conform to the contents of one’s beliefs, an obvious case of metaphysical subjectivism), merely thinking lustful thoughts resulting in guilt of adultery, the various “ask and ye shall receive” passages in the gospels, faith healings, etc.

If Michael doesn’t think that these qualify as examples of a “finite mind” having “primacy over an existent (object),” one can only wonder what he thinks would qualify as such. That he insists that the bible nowhere portrays a “finite mind” as enjoying metaphysical primacy over the objects of its consciousness, only suggests that he has not grasped the issue of metaphysical primacy very well.

But Michael seems to think that Objectivists have no justification in affirming the primacy of existence consistently. He listed two propositions:

1. Existence has primacy over our consciousness.
​

2. Existence has primacy over consciousness.
​

He then writes: “These are not the same propositions at all. The latter is not contained in the inherent imperative of the original question. It’s a gratuitous insertion unwittingly perpetrated by a finite consciousness in spite of existence. It didn’t ‘hear’ that. It tells itself that. Once again, a univocal existence cannot tell us anything we don’t already know; we would necessarily have to be the tellers in that case. But that’s absurd as this would violate the imperative that is proposition one.”

Again, Michael is operating here on the question-begging basis of two false dichotomies: on the one hand, there is the dichotomous division of existence into “univocal” vs. “analogical” realms. Operating on the primacy of consciousness, Christianity divides reality into two opposing realms: the realm of concretes, flesh, blood, finite consciousness and reason; and the realm of “transcendence” which man can access, not by means of reason and objective input from reality, but by means of introspecting the contents of scripturally guided imagination. At no point in the bible do we find a philosophically charged concern for distinguishing between reality and imagination at the foundation of knowledge. Religious imagery, constructed from various allegorical tropes and selectively culled into the indoctrinated imagination of the believer, seems immediately real to the believer given the fact that it does reside in his imagination and his ability to distinguish between reality and fiction has been systematically crippled. Given Christianity’s assumption of the primacy of consciousness, the bible could offer no consistent guide on this fundamental distinction. To do so would be directly fatal to its religious impulse.

In fact, however, there is one reality, and that’s all. Existence exists. There is no objective justification for positing some supernatural or “transcendent” realm as something real when in fact it is merely imaginary. The assumption of the primacy of consciousness lying at the root of Christianity assures us of this fact. A belief system premised on the primacy of consciousness cannot contain its subjective influences to one aspect of that belief system; it corrodes the entire artifice. Many believers sense deep down the fact that there is no objective basis to their belief system, but they choose to suppress it, submerging it into the darker labyrinths of mystic delusion and pretending that the immediacy of imagination cancels out this concern. In the final analysis, however, the Christian’s belief in such a realm comes from a sacred storybook, not from facts he observes in the world around him; even on his own terms, his “religious truths” are not something that can be discovered by reason: according to Christianity, they need to be “revealed” from an agent imagined to exist in that “transcendent” realm. Blur the distinction between the real and the imaginary: that is the primary gimmick of religious inculcation.

On the other hand, there’s the false notion that there is such a thing as an “infinite consciousness,” which is implied by Michael’s continued references to “finite consciousness.” Michael knows that the notion of an “infinite consciousness” is not accepted among those he’s trying to persuade, and yet he’s offered no sustainable justification for continuing to affirm such a notion. It is a fantasy, an imagination which is as incoherent as “pure five.” We’ve already been through this. But Michael can’t make his points without making use of already discredited ideas. He apparently thinks the fact that well-known thinkers throughout history have endorsed this idea should be sufficient basis for anyone else to accept it. It’s not.

Also, the Objectivist affirmation of the primacy of existence as a general, absolute principle is in no way “gratuitous.” If Michael were truly concerned with avoiding worldviews premised on gratuitous notions, he would have rejected Christianity long ago. By contrast, the Objectivist view finds only confirmation of the primacy of existence in every species of consciousness objectively observable, whether it is human consciousness, canine consciousness, bovine consciousness, avian consciousness, reptilian consciousness, etc. All evidence supports the primacy of existence. The only alternative is something we must imagine, but the imaginary is not real.

Moreover, the consistent affirmation of the primacy of existence in no way violates any objectively knowable facts. I explained to Andrew Louis, who also piped into the discussion, that appealing to facts implicitly acknowledges the primacy of existence, and thereby the truth of Objectivism, since such an appeal implicitly recognizes that statements about reality need factual support to substantiate them, and also that such appeals imply awareness of the fact that wishing doesn’t make it so – i.e., implicitly denying the primacy of consciousness. Indeed, there is no objectively available evidence of a consciousness to whose contents reality conforms. Again, this is a fantasy, an imagination that has run away with itself.

So it should be clear that Objectivism’s affirmation of the primacy of existence is (a) supported by evidence, (b) internally consistent, and (c) unchallenged by any legitimate evidence to the contrary. Very simply, there is no evidence to the contrary. The very proposition that there is evidence for a position or against it, assumes the primacy of existence to begin with for the reasons indicated above. So even an attempt to cite evidence to the contrary would imply the truth of the primacy of existence. There is no escape for the theist here. Assuming the truth of a principle in an effort to deny or undermine it, does not lead to non-contradictory conclusions.

So no, it is not the case that human consciousness “tells itself that” as though this were some arbitrary position one simply prefers to be true. Here we can see that Michael’s would-be objection itself assumes the truth of the primacy of existence, the very view which he is seeking to undermine: what possible objection would one have to the view that a position is true because one prefers that it is true, if not the fact that it violates the primacy of existence? Blank out. On the contrary, the primacy of existence is not something we simply affirm as a result of preferences; rather, it is something we discover repeatedly without exception throughout nature, and subsequently identify on this basis. It is thus a fundamental recognition. It is not confined merely to human beings. It is the consistent testimony of the facts we discover in the case of any actual consciousness. Discovering facts and identifying them by means of consciousness are operations consistent entirely consistent with the primacy of existence. There is no inconsistency between object, method and identification on the part of Objectivism here.

Michael wrote: “God is talking to us all the time. God is talking to Dawson when He tells him that the only thing that may be extrapolated from the question’s inherent imperative is the first proposition. The second is an illusion.”

We can all imagine a supernatural being “talking” to us and telling us what Michael gratuitously asserts here. Jim Jones did this. David Koresh did this. Marshall Herff Applewhite did this. Michael can call the phantasm he imagines “God,” the Muslim can call the phantasm he imagines “Allah,” the Lahu tribesman can call the phantasm he imagines “Geusha,” and the Blarkist can call the phantasm he imagines “Blarko.” But either way you slice it, it all comes up imagination. Unlike Christianity, Objectivism recognizes explicitly the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. “Revelation” in one form or another is the mode of “knowledge” affirmed by all expressions of mysticism, for mysticism assumes the impotence of human consciousness when it comes to knowledge: man is depraved, impotent, incompetent, soiled and besmirched; he cannot overcome the “noetic effects of sin” on his own. So any knowledge that he does possess must come from some supernatural, omniscient source; he must “think” his god’s thoughts “after him,” fancying his imagination as a means of reading a supernatural mind. On such a view, knowledge is not something man discovers through his own cognitive effort. Driven by the primacy of consciousness, believers are in fact just making it all up on the basis of storybook motifs which are accepted as non-negotiable, indispensable absolutes at the basis of his “system.” It all seems “logical” because a semblance of logic is applied to tie tangents, speculations and other cognitive wanderings to the bedrock of these storybook motifs. Logic is a formal concern which any worldview can adopt; but whence comes the content? For Objectivism, the content comes from reality. For religion, it comes from a reality-denying storybook. Appeals to logic, then, cannot immunize a position from scrutiny; a microwave will heat horse manure just as well as last night’s leftovers. On the religious view, man, given his fallibility and non-omniscience, can only wind up with error if he relies on his own mind. What is missing in all this is the very epistemology man needs in order to identify and integrate the reality in which he actually exists, namely reason.

Michael writes: “Passive entities don’t know or say anything. Persons do. Since I don’t have primacy over existence and a univocal existence cannot know or tell me anything about itself, what is this existence that has primacy?”

Metaphysical primacy as Objectivism informs it does not mean reality “saying anything” or “telling anything.” Saying and telling are actions of consciousness. Nor does the primacy of existence imply that consciousness is “passive.” As I’ve pointed out to Michael before, consciousness is a type of activity; the primacy of existence recognizes this outright and explicitly. Indeed, that consciousness is a type of activity speaks to the very point of affirming the primacy of existence: it tells us that, regardless of what action consciousness takes, the only right action with regard to truthful knowledge about reality must be constrained, volitionally – i.e., by means of self-regulation, by the recognition that the objects of consciousness exist and are what they are independent of whatever action one’s consciousness might perform. This is why the primacy of existence is found at the root of the recognition that “wishing doesn’t make it so.”

The existence that has primacy is every thing, existent, attribute, etc., that actually exists, including consciousness itself (as an actually existing attribute of some organisms and also as a secondary object). “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification” (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged). It’s not a matter of anything “say[ing] anything” or “telling me anything about itself,” as though existence were itself a conscious entity. That’s absurd. (And such absurdity is religion.) Rather, it is a matter of some entities in existence possessing a faculty of consciousness, particularly those capable of conceptual knowledge, and those entities being aware of things that exist, including themselves, and the cognitive actions they take to identify and integrate the things they perceive according to what they perceive by means of concepts. This is called reason. Notice that Michael’s analysis does not allow for reason. It systematically and gratuitously leaves reason out of the entire equation.

Michael summarily equates this existence with a supernatural consciousness, gratuitously asserting “It’s a Person.” He offers no factual substantiation in support of this assertion. Rather, he puts on display for us his own primacy-of-consciousness “epistemology”: Michael has appointed himself the “teller,” telling us what reality is, offering no explanation of “how” he “knows” this and presumably having no need to do so. He just pulls it “out of thin air,” as in the case of all mystical “revelations” before it. There’s no application of reason in all of this. It is not an issue of discovery on Michael’s part, for if it were, he would gladly point to the facts which informed his discovery. Rather, it is an exemplification of how his worldview infests its “epistemology” with the primacy of consciousness: it’s “true” because he believes it, and he believes it because he imagines it, and the worldview which he has accepted does not allow him to consistently distinguish between what he “knows” and what he imagines, for it does not allow him to consistently distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. Without imagination, there would be no Christianity. And an epistemology which restrains one’s imagination to what is rational (i.e., an epistemology constrained by the primacy of existence) would never allow what Michael affirms as “truth” to be accepted as such. This is why authors and characters of the bible repeatedly appeal to faith instead of reason. Michael has been careful to ignore the role of faith throughout his asseverations since by doing so he thinks he avoids giving away the game. But we know better than this, and we won’t be suckered in by his apologetic suppression of faith, even though they lurk in the background all along. It’s all about maintaining a façade.

Michael says: “God is talking to us all the time. Dawson only listens to himself.”

Here’s an example of Michael’s faith spilling into his pretense of rationality and his personal resentment of me clouding his judgment. He can’t contain these because they cannot be constrained once Christianity’s mystical premises have been accepted. Michael is a victim of his own worldview’s self-immolation on the pyre of fideism. Indeed, contrary to what Michael states here, Dawson listens to many people, people who claim all kinds of things. Dawson considers what he hears others say according to the strictures of reason, and those who propose things that are contrary to reason resent this. Also, Dawson knows that there is a fundamental difference between reality and imagination, and he knows that many who think they are hearing the voice of a supernatural being are in fact merely imagining things and misidentifying what they think they’ve heard as a “voice” from some transcendent realm, just as some middle aged housewife on the outskirts of Albuquerque, New Mexico, will insist that the burn patterns on a tortilla are really the image of Jesus miraculously looking back at her in the heat of her religious hysteria. It’s imagination provoked by irrational fear, guided by religious suggestion and tailored to suit religious expectation, that leads to Michael’s “Twilight Zone abruptions of crazy” as well as to the middle-aged housewife’s “interpretation” of religion-confirming burn marks on a tortilla.

And Michael thinks what I say is embarrassing? Wow! Just wow!

Michael writes: “Until you show me otherwise, I have no reason to believe that you haven’t been disingenuous. All of your arguments against the existence of God, for example, amount to you obviating your own conclusions with the nonsense that God is B when in fact divine perfection is A!”

Since Michael first inserted himself into my blog’s comments, all he has presented are subjective assertions about this god he’s enshrined in his imagination. And now he’s expecting me to prove that I’m not being disingenuous? There is really only one “argument against the existence of God” that I have shared with Michael in my discussion with him, and that is the following (from this blog):

Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.
​

Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.
​

Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
​

Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary.
​

Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
​

I do not see where Michael has interacted with this, even though I cited this very syllogism back on 9 Nov. in the comments of this blog. So if he’s been reading, he has no excuse but to be aware of it. And yet it is the only argument I’ve proposed which seeks to establish the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist.

If Michael thinks he can demonstrate that his god is real rather than imaginary, let him try. It is this very task that he would need to take up in order to sustain the charge that my argument with obviating its own conclusion “with the nonsense that God is B when in fact divine perfection is A!” And yet back on 7 Nov., in this blog’s comments, Michael already announced:

I have no interest in proving the Christian God's existence to anyone or proving that the Bible is a direct revelation from Him. That's silly. Each person will decide what he will or will not believe for himself.
​

So if he sticks with his previously stated policy, he’ll never be able to make the case for his accusation against me.

BTW, the conclusion of my argument from divine lonesomeness is that Christianity “begins with a starting point of divine solipsism, which is, according to a rational worldview, the ultimate expression of subjectivism” – this is not the same as a conclusion affirming that the Christian god does not exist. Even here, when I spell out the nature of my own argument’s conclusion, Michael seems to have confused himself. Even worse, Michael’s own explicit affirmation that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence,” can only mean that his “divine perfection” ultimately reduces to divine solipsism.

Michael recently stated: “Dawson is not merely failing to listen carefully in regard to his arguments against God’s existence. He is intentionally pretending not to understand. He is well past the point of mere errors of cognitional transitions.”

And yet, the only argument that I have proposed which seeks to argue “against God’s existence” is the argument I quoted in full above – namely the argument which concludes that the Christian god does not exist on the basis of the sub-conclusion that it is merely imaginary. I posted the above argument back on 9 Nov. in the comments of this blog where my discussion with Michael began. But Michael has not interacted with this argument. He has completely ignored it. Should this surprise us? I trow not.

Instead, he has focused on another argument of mine, one which he apparently believes can be answered by reciting nonsense phrases like “divine perfection” and “the eternally existing now!” which, when examined, are exposed as simply destroying the very concept of consciousness to begin with, namely by completely obliterating its objective context while retrofitting it with imaginary attributes that carry emotional weight in believer’s minds (like “omniscience,” “omnipotence,” “omnipresence” coupled arbitrarily with consciousness), all the while detaching the concept of consciousness from reality, denying its active nature in order to project it outside the “time-space continuum,” and making what Michael himself has called “Twilight Zone abruptions of crazy” such as “The American Revolution is occurring for God right now, as is the creation of the cosmos within which it was fought . . . not merely in His mind, but as actual existents apart from Him” as an attempt to provide his god with some mind-independent object prior to it creating anything independent of itself. And while such blathering is simply bewilderingly incoherent, it ignores the point, which I raised, that Michael’s own affirmation of the primacy of consciousness can only entail that, for the Christian god, there could be no mind-independent objects for it to have awareness of in the first place. As pointed out above, Michael’s “divine perfection” reduces to divine solipsism, and a mountain full of garbage comes along with it. All of this pours hot coals on Michael’s already fuming head as he erupts with another episode of fits and tantrums, name-calling and condescension.


Michael’s Confused Yammering about Infinity

In regard to our disputes over the notion of an “actual infinity,” I stated:

Indeed, I really have no idea what an “infinite consciousness” could be. It is literally and utterly nonsensical.
​

Apparently Michael thinks that I’m being dishonest by stating this, when in fact it is not a falsehood at all. This is an autobiographical statement, a statement about my own understanding. I do realize and understand that Christians affirm the notion of an “infinite consciousness.” But it does not follow from this that the notion of an “infinite consciousness” has conceptual integrity so far as I can tell, and I’ve presented good reasons for dismissing it. For instance, I indicated Objectivism’s primary reason for denying the notion that an actual infinity does or can exist. Here I quoted Dr. Peikoff:

”Infinite” does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of ‘infinity’ denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subtraction. For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite.” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 31-32).
​

Michael had replied to this by saying:

The always finite number of segments for a finite consciousness has no bearing on the issues of identity and actuality proper.
​

I responded with a needed correction:

Well, the notion of segments is only introduced in the sense of dividing something, an area where Objectivism holds that the concept ‘infinite’ has at least some legitimacy (the other being the ability to continue adding to something). It is not fundamental. Entities are fundamental. That is where Rand/Peikoff are working from. Entities have identity. (I’m guessing we both would agree on this?) Where we seem to part ways is over the implications that identity has for finitude. The Objectivist view makes complete sense to me: to be actual is to be specific, and the specific is always finite. The view you seem to be proposing – which seems to have in mind no definable identity that I can grasp at this point – defies rational comprehension.
​

Notice that the points I outline here are completely consistent with the statement I make above, just prior to the Peikoff quote.

Notice also that Objectivism is not denying the hypothetical potential, which is what mathematicians have in mind, to continue adding or dividing units without end. What needs to be emphasized is that this is a conceptual process, and therefore not a metaphysical fundamental; the potential to continue adding or dividing segments does not denote a concrete entity that exists in reality apart from the mental process of conceptual integration. What is metaphysically fundamental are entities – concretes that exist apart from and prior to conceptual activity. It is here where Objectivism affirms that “the actual is always finite.” And it is here where the theist needs more than his mere say-so to substantiate his assertion of the existence of an “actual infinite.” And indeed, it is here where Michael has not succeeded in substantiating his position or his objections against Objectivism on this matter. This should be clear to anyone who reads the quote from Peikoff carefully and considers the distinctions he makes in that quote against the reactions which Michael has offered in response to that quote. This will be important to keep in mind below.

Michael had also stated:

Simultaneously, the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end. That is a perfectly rational, mathematical axiom. It follows, infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end. That’s its identity expressed philosophically.
​

To which I responded:

Even if we grant that “it follows” from the assumption that “the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end” that “infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end” (and I’m not even sure I would grant that without more context to support it), it does not follow that the concept ‘infinity’ so-defined denotes something that is actual. And that’s the dispute we seem to be having.
​

Michael seems to have anticipated in some way the point I was making here, for he also stated:

As for infinity’s actuality, on the contrary, what we have here is a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite, something that can divide the divisible without end. Otherwise, we are aware of a mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable, yet gratuitous?! That’s odd. That’s very, very odd. . . .
​

The “mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable,” suggests correspondence to the hypothetical ability to continue adding and/or dividing entities which actually exist. This is a conceptual operation, just as all mathematics is. If this mathematical axiom has an objective basis, then it affirms the primacy of existence. If it is thought to denote some kind of conscious agent which only “exists” in one’s imagination, then it springs from the primacy of consciousness and has no bearing whatsoever on what actually exists. Michael needs to decide. Neither alternative poses a positive outcome for his god-belief, since the primacy of consciousness is its (his god-belief’s) fundamental premise.

In response to Michael’s overall statement, I wrote:

I’m not sure I follow. Again, suppose that I’m dense as a pile of bricks here. You seem to be saying that our ability (in this realm) to divide a divisible entity without end (and here Binswanger would disagree that this ability is itself actual or realizable; he considers it merely hypothetical) is “a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite.” Am I reading you correctly? If so, it’s not at all clear what you think this “very strong reason” is, unless it’s a disguised appeal to ignorance or incredulity.
​

Notice that I was asking Michael for clarification here, since in a previous statement he wrote “the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end.” But in reaction to my request for clarification, he comes back with more nauseating fumes of contempt:

Our ability? Who said anything about our ability in this regard? The obvious meaning of the phrase “something that can divide the divisible without end” is that we, you and I, can’t! which makes all the difference in the world. Oh, you followed that alright as your misrepresentation is the very essence of your evasion. “Dense as a pile of bricks”? Did I say that? I misspoke. Let me revise that. Liar. Punk. Whore. Snake. Coward. Sociopath
​

Simply asking the guy for clarification will get you this. But this is typical of Michael’s proclivity for outbursts: he uses one little tiny thing – in this case my words “our ability” – as an occasion to let loose his already amply-exhibited contempt. But notice how Michael passes on the opportunity to provide more information regarding any argument he may have on the matter at hand. It should be clear that my question is concerned with how we can infer that there is what he has called “a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite.” If it’s not “our ability” to divide a divisible entity without end, is it our conception of such a potential that constitutes “a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite”? He says that “we” have this “very strong reason.” But what precisely is that “very strong reason”? It’s not clear from what Michael does write. Perhaps Michael means that the fact that “the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end” is this “very strong reason” to suppose that there is an actual infinite which “can” do the dividing he has in mind. If so, it’s not at all clear how this apprehension on our part constitutes a “very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite, something that can divide the divisible without end.” His following statement – that “Otherwise, we are aware of a mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable, yet gratuitous?! That’s odd. That’s very, very odd” – does not, so far as I can tell, translate into support for his assertion that we have a “very strong reason to believe” what he says. That something strikes us as “odd,” is not justification for appealing to some invisible magic being as the “answer” to the supposedly problematic issue that’s being called “odd.” Perhaps it is in Michael’s mind, but it’s not on an objective orientation to reality.

Seriously, this guy Michael does not come across as a worthy spokesman for what he styles as both the creator of the universe and “Truth and Love.” If anything, it seems he should exhibit more patience, if not a thicker skin. But this is to be expected from Christians when their bluff is called. They have nothing else but emotion to go on, and when it spills out as it has in Michael’s case, it’s clear that this is all he really has to go on. All his theological jargon is merely part of the grandiose self-important façade he’s trying to maintain.

Picking up on my previous line of thought, I wrote:

As for our awareness of what you call “a mathematical axiom,” Objectivism would say that this is implicit in the very process of concept-formation. (This might explain why it seems appropriate to call it an axiom.) Rand notes:

”A concept is not formed by observing every concrete subsumed under it, and does not specify the number of such concretes. A concept is like an arithmetical sequence of specifically defined units, going off in both directions, open at both ends and including all units of that particular kind. For instance, the concept ‘man’ includes all men who live at the present, who have ever lived or who will ever live. An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of unit does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. The same principle applies to concepts: the concept ‘man’ does not (and need not) specify what number of men will ultimately have existed – it specifies only the characteristics of man, and means that any number of entities possessing these characteristics is to be identified as ‘men’.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 17-18)
​

So far from suggesting that “infinity” really exists, or that an actual entity can in fact be “infinite,” the mathematical axiom which you have mentioned really points to our ability to conceptualize, not to something existing in some supernatural realm. Again, I can’t over-stress the importance of a good theory of concepts. I’ve found no theory of concepts in the bible, not even a bad one. But again, perhaps I’m just dense.
​

Far from interacting with any of this in an adult manner, Michael has shown no indication that he grasps the points that I’ve presented here, let alone showing them to be faulty in any way. And yet he continues to proceed as though the notion of an “infinite consciousness” is perfectly sensible, even going so far as suggesting that its axiomatic.

In fact, however, certain statements of Michael’s only indicate that he has not understood the Objectivist position at all very well. For he continued, stating:

What does appear to be an instance of circular reasoning is Peikoff’s notion that only the finite can exist. He seems to be arguing that because consciousness can only apprehend the potentiality of infinity, but not its realization, infinity doesn’t exist. More at, infinity allegedly has no identity that consciousness can pin down with anything but a referent and, therefore, cannot be said to have any discernable actuality. But that appears to suggest that some sort of consciousness is imposing a constraint on existence.
​

In response to this, I found it necessary to quote the passage from Peikoff again (see above) and point out the following:

Notice that [Peikoff] says that “an infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity.” He bases this observation directly on the definition he just gave, namely that ‘infinity’ “means larger than any specific quantity.” Since the actual always exists in some (i.e., specific) quantity, the actual is therefore always finite. He’s not saying that anything here which suggests or implies that consciousness puts some kind of constraint on what can or cannot exist. He cites the “potentiality of indefinite addition or subtraction,” not to prove his point (since it’s not based on this), but to demonstrate it in action: “however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more,” i.e., finite.
​

Clearly Peikoff is contrasting the actual with mere potentiality and notes that the actual is always finite by reference to the definition of ‘infinite’ and to the fact that any actual thing is specific, meaning its attributes exist in some specific quantity. In no way is Peikoff denying the potential to continue adding or dividing units, as the mathematical axiom holds. The mathematical axiom does not state or imply that an actual infinite exists, and mathematics does not require such to be the case. The mathematical concern is answered by the Objectivist theory of concepts, as I pointed out above. It’s a conceptual matter.

But it still appears that Michael has not understood the Objectivist position on the matter. This impression persists when we read the following belligerent comment by Michael:

For example, [Dawson’s] nonsense about the mathematical axiom of division! Are you friggin’ kidding me? That’s a basic, necessary, indispensable mathematic imperative. We cannot even begin to comprehend mathematics, let alone deal with calculi of algebra, geometry, trigonometry or calculus without accepting the obviously rational fact of a linear scale of numeric infinity on either side of the “0”. What do you think the implications of PI and the apparent impossibility, albeit, constructional necessity of squaring the circle are? Peikoff and Dawson are prattling lunacy! No wonder Objectivism is not respected by the academic community at large. Pseudo-mathematical blather! And you drooling idiots are giving him a pass on that?
​

Notice that nothing I wrote in the previous exchange seems to have sunk in for our friend Michael. Nothing in the passage that I quoted from Peikoff or what I have stated denies either the availability or the usefulness of the concept of infinity in mathematics. There is no indication in either my comments or the Peikoff quote that mathematics must dispense with the concept of infinity. So what is Michael fussing about here? What specifically is he calling “lunacy”? Michael has not been able to secure any rational case for the notion that an actual infinite can or does exist. And yet he still finds it necessary to lash out at me and others personally in spite of my efforts to clarify my position and correct some of his misunderstandings on the matter. Truly his behavior is inexplicable.


The Anti-Conceptual Implications of Christianity’s “God”

Michael writes: “1. First you argue that God cannot have an actually existent object by imagining Him to be an entity trapped inside the space-time continuum, obviating your conclusion. Rather, you began by arguing that he is not trapped inside the continuum and then shift your premise to the other without notice. When you’re shown that your god, your B, could not possibly be what is conceptually understood in the history of philosophical and theological proofs to be an entity of divine perfection existing outside the space-time continuum, you respond as if you don’t understand.”

I’ve explained all this repeatedly, and still Michael is flailing away at his own confusion. He cites “what is conceptually understood in the history of philosophical and theological proofs to be an entity of divine perfection existing outside the space-time continuum,” and yet even this characterization betrays a profound ignorance of the nature of concepts. Theology is riddled with stolen concepts, floating abstractions, and other anti-conceptual notions which ultimately reduce to the primacy of consciousness metaphysics which Michael has denied on the part of human consciousness. And yet it’s present throughout his theology, infecting every morsel of what he accepts as religious ‘knowledge’. And here we have a prime example of this.

He makes use of the concept ‘consciousness’; on an objective orientation to reality (i.e., on one which consistently adheres to the primacy of existence metaphysics), this concept has meaning, and its meaning cannot simply be wiped away in order to make room for the imaginary. But the context in which Michael projects consciousness completely strips it of meaningful content. He likely doesn’t grasp this point since he is so accustomed to misappropriating concepts on behalf of mystical notions which can have meaning only in the confines of religious imagination, and of course he wants to think this is perfectly legitimate. It’s not. The “consciousness” he imagines in the “transcendent” realm is loaded with gratuitous denials of what we know about consciousness by objective methodology. For instance, his god-consciousness is not active (it couldn’t be since it’s “outside” time); it is not dependent on biological structures (it’s magical, like Puff the Magic Dragon); it has no existential purpose (it doesn’t need to identify things that it needs to live – it’s indestructible, immortal, eternal, in need of nothing), etc. It’s “pure five.” It’s nonsense. My argument has only helped to expose these gratuitous departures from reality.

I explained this in an earlier comment where I stated:

To illustrate this, consider an analogous, though more benign example. On a rational view, the concept ‘five’ denotes a number following the number four and preceding the number six, and it assumes equal measure in its units. But suppose someone comes along and says there’s an ultimate “pure five,” and this “pure five” can do all kinds of things that the concept ‘five’ as we know it cannot do, but at the same time it’s clear that he does not think it follows four, it does not precede six, its units are not equal in measure, it is not half of ten, and it is not the square root of 25. It’s “pure five,” so we would be fools to expect it to be like “ordinary five.” On this basis he affirms such “Twilight Zone abruptions” as “five plus four are sixty-two” and “five times five times five are one.” Naturally you and I would find this completely absurd, given its blatant anti-conceptualism. But this is essentially what Objectivists see happening in the case of the Christian’s (mis)use of the concept ‘consciousness when he projects it into this “transcendent” realm he imagines: he takes a concept that is perfectly legitimate in “this” realm and applies it to a realm which is fundamentally different from (if not opposed to) ours, all the while denying its biological nature, it need for genuinely mind-independent objects, its biological purpose, its active nature, etc. It is clearly a case of anti-conceptualism, and given its fundamental (axiomatic) importance, it is far more devastating to one’s philosophy than the fellow who affirms the “pure five” described above.
​

Christianity’s affirmation of a time-transcending consciousness is directly analogous to the notion of “pure five” as described here. It is an attempt to have one’s cake, and eat it, too. It is expressly anti-conceptual, and theologians have been trying to get away with this kind of “Twilight Zone abruption of crazy” for centuries. Notice the results: theologians incessantly bickering among themselves on every little conceivable tidbit and implication that can be drawn from it. The fact of the matter is that theologians are simply going off in the direction that their imaginations, weighted as they are by their own biases, preferences, mental distortions and anti-conceptual extrapolations, might happen to take them. They departed from reality long ago and are simply running each other over on their own ‘wheels of confusion’.

Also, as I have pointed out, and Michael still seems not to grasp, the fact that his ascribing metaphysical primacy to his god-consciousness can only mean that ultimately there are no mind-independent objects for it to be aware of. He ends up simply chasing his own tail here, since these are problems of his worldview’s own anti-conceptual making, and in his frustration he seeks to lash out at me and others personally, as though this will somehow make the problem go away and/or make us come around and nod our heads in mindless agreement with his worldview. Indeed, none of this mess in Michael’s worldview is my doing. But still he gets sore at me. Observe:

Michael huffed: “Fine. You’re not a liar, you’re stupid.”

No, I am not a liar. As for being stupid on these matters, I’ve been listening to Christians all my life. It is not my fault that they cannot connect their mystical claims to reality. I simply point this out. There may be some stupidity here, but it’s not on my part. Also, I am not a mind-reader. If Michael has something in mind that I am failing to understand after repeated efforts on my part to get his story clear, concise and consistent, I am not the blame for this. It is Michael’s worldview which affirms the primacy of wishing over facts, anti-conceptual mishandlings of otherwise perfectly good concepts, floating abstractions, stolen concepts, unargued assertions about the nature of reality, and apparently condones his belligerent and increasingly foul-mouthed fits of condescension.

And while he states explicitly here that I am not a liar, he later came back and repeatedly called me a liar. He cannot seem to get his own ad hominems straight. As we saw above, he found it necessary to label me as follows:

Liar. Punk. Whore. Snake. Coward. Sociopath.
​

Why is it that the Christian worldview must always be represented by folks who apparently cannot resist the urge to resort to schoolyard bully tactics? Outbursts like this do nothing either to vouch for Michael’s credibility or support his contentions. On the contrary, they can only undermine both.

Michael continued: “2. When you are shown that the limitations of finite consciousness (your god, your B, in fact, yourself nancing about and spouting stupidities) are categorically distinct things from the issues of identity and actuality; when you’re shown that infinity is a definitive, axiomatic, mathematical principle of necessity: you respond as if you don’t understand!”

See, Cohen is right: “When the believer is in the presence of an unbeliever, it is to preach and ‘witness’, not to listen.” I addressed Michael’s feeble attempts to refute Peikoff’s argument, and I explained the conceptual basis of the concept of infinity – i.e., as it is legitimately understood. It is apparent that it was Michael who has not understood. He confused Peikoff’s example of application with his proof. Then he proceeded to indulge in gratuitous, self-serving assertions which completely ignored the points raised against his imaginary “infinite consciousness.”

Michael huffed again: “You’re not a liar, you’re stupid!”

There there. Perhaps Michael thought that this outburst would make him feel better. It didn’t. His contempt is unsatiable.

Michael wrote: “3. When you are shown that your god, your B, is bound by volition rather than nature and, therefore, that the construct of perfect divinity could not possibly or logically be this strawman of yours, you respond as if you don’t understand.”

Here Michael is in need of correction again. For one thing, he seems to be confusing me with Rick Warden. Moreover, Michael has failed to understand my point that his assertion of the primacy of consciousness cannot be consistently maintained since it can never be complete, making it necessary to borrow from the primacy of existence. Michael even gives me the rope to hang him with in his very objection here. The view that his god is bound by its nature is evidence precisely of this: it did not create its own nature; its nature is not a product of its own conscious activity; its nature is not bound by its volition. Affirming that something is bound by its nature is an implicit affirmation of the primacy of existence, even in the confines of an imagination bent on leaving reality completely behind, as in the case of theism. And yet, on top of this, Michael states that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence.” He has inconsistent metaphysics coming out his ears, and he doesn’t even realize it. But he still wants to say I’m the stupid one.

Michael continued: “4. When you are shown – what was, in fact, self-evident all along, i.e., that ultimate existence relative to divine perfection (A!) necessarily is divine consciousness, that the two are one and the same thing – you still defend following claptrap of B as if you don’t understand!”

Quoting me: [Y]ou have one foot on the primacy of existence, and another on the primacy of consciousness. Now, perhaps I should have worded it this way, but I didn’t expect my point to raise your ire as it has.”

My point is completely accurate, and it’s so clear and obvious that it’s troubling that he continues to kick against the pricks in such a huffy manner as he does. Michael is the one who has proposed an “analogical” model of reality, where the primacy of existence applies to human consciousness in “this” realm, and that “ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence” originating in some “transcendent” realm. His attempts to compartmentalize all this only worsen the matter; they cannot be integrated without contradiction. Either he is simply in denial over this point, or he simply has not grasped it yet. But there’s no question that the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are incompatible and mutually exclusive. There’s also no question that the primacy of existence is the orientation between the subject of consciousness and its objects found in all instances of consciousness in the non-imaginary realm of existence.

Michael goes on: ‘No. You shouldn’t have uttered this stupidity at all. But I offered you an olive branch, an opportunity recant unsustainable arguments due to your failure to grasp this particular aspect of the problem and to do so with dignity. Instead, you respond with more of the same idiocy and have the temerity to make me out to be the bad guy, the one who doesn’t get it. LOL! You are beyond my ire. It’s my contempt with which I regard you now.”

Michael’s contempt has been variably evident from the very beginning of his participation in this discussion. It is nothing new. I strongly doubt that I am the cause of his contempt. His contempt is likely something he’s been carrying around for many years, and he’s simply looking for new victims to cast it on. I am not a victim, and Michael will never be able to victimize me. I still stand solid and sure, and that will only take his contempt to new heights. It is not my problem.

Michael’s worldview, premised as it is on the primacy of consciousness, can only lead to the primacy of a bad attitude in its adherents. Michael is a living example of this.

Michael says that “The problem of existence and, therefore, the construct of divine perfection is objectively self-evident to all. In other words, the idea of God objectively exists in and of itself; it imposes itself on our minds without our willing that it do so. It’s axiomatic. It resides at the base of knowledge, and the atheist proves this every time he opens his yap to deny that there be any actuality behind it.”

In order to accept any of this “claptrap,” I would have to ignore and systematically deny the fundamental distinction, which I know exists, between reality and imagination. I can imagine Michael’s god just as I can imagine the Lahu tribesman’s Geusha. But nothing will ever be able to alter the fact that what I’m imagining is not real, no matter what labels we want to fix it (e.g., “divine perfection,” “the eternally existing now!” etc.).

Michael writes: “In his stupid argument against theism (‘Divine Lonesomeness’), Dawson necessarily acknowledges that the idea of God refers to a Being Who existed prior to all other existents as the Creator of all other existents apart from Him, WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM!”

This is like saying “God caused causality.” It is utterly incoherent. Prior to this creative act, there could be no action whatsoever, since causality is the identity of action. Similarly with the notion of creating “THE SPACE-TIME CONTIUUM.” This attempt to rebut the argument incoherently (and gratuitously) posits consciousness outside of time. But as I pointed out, consciousness is a type of activity, and activity implies time – i.e., action over time. On the view Michael proposes, there could be no conscious activity prior to his god creating “THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM,” including its own alleged conscious activity. It’s just more fantasy bottled up and put out for sale as “philosophy.” It’s completely anti-philosophical, completely anti-rational, completely anti-conceptual.

When Michael states: “Dawson simultaneously argues the eternally existent now and argues against it, proving it’s [sic] cogency as encompassed by the construct of divine perfection.”

Now Michael is straw-manning me. I did not “argue the eternally existent now”. Michael is confused. I simply explained why the notion is incoherent given the attempt to package it with consciousness. All this has gone straight over Michael’s head, and he has allowed his contempt to prevent him from understanding all of this. Michael’s devotion to a set of imaginary constructs informed by notions completely devoid of objective content while using the cover of legitimate concepts which have been gratuitously ripped from their rational context, has set the tone of his mission to accomplish nothing in particular in his discussion with me, save perhaps to find a new object for his growing contempt.

Michael then flares his nostrils: “Dawson, the nincompoop of nincompoops is arguing that the idea of a self-subsistent Creator Who resides outside and independently of the space-time continuum is irrational because this idea of a self-subsistent Creator Who resides outside and independently of the space-time continuum would not have an actually existent object to apprehend apart from Himself in His timeless because He doesn’t reside outside and independently of the space-time continuum!”

Actually, the incoherence in Michael’s god-belief is even worse. He makes use of the concept ‘consciousness’ while denying its genetic roots, including the temporal implications of action. Consciousness is a type of activity. But positing consciousness “outside and independently of the space-time continuum” can only mean the consciousness in question is not capable of any action. But in this state of being “outside and independent of the space-time continuum,” Michael still treats it as though it were capable of action, namely creating the space-time continuum in the first place. It all collapses into stolen concept upon stolen concept, which is the hallmark of mystical incoherence. But we should use caution here: pointing this out will only leave mystics roasting in their own fumes of contempt. Want evidence? Observe Michael’s behavior in the comments of my blog.

Instead of regaining lost ground, Michael simply digs his hole deeper and deeper.

Michael gratuitously asserts: “The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied out right. It cannot be done! Any such argument will always entail an inherent, self-negating contradiction!”

For one, if there is no rational justification for positing “the possibility of God’s existence” in the first place, then there’s no need to deny it: it is simply inadmissible at its first mention. And of course, there is no rational justification for positing “the possibility of God’s existence.” There is no “inherent, self-negating contradiction” in pointing any of this out. Nor is there any “inherent, self-negating contradiction” in the following anti-theistic argument:

Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.
​

Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.
​

Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
​

Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary.
​

Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
​

The Christian’s god is a figment of his imagination, informed by a storybook worldview which likens the universe to a cartoon.

Michael fumes: “So Judeo-Christianity has no epistemology, eh? Well, one thing’s for sure, unlike Judeo-Christianity, no atheistic system of thought can point to a rationally coherent foundation for its epistemology.”

Actually, Objectivism can: we have the primacy of existence. This is not a principle that one will learn about in the pages of Leviticus or the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It is completely incompatible with the religious view of the world, and yet one must assume it even in denying it. So Michael is simply spouting absolute falsehoods here.

What Michael does next is an attempt to assimilate Objectivist principles as if they properly belonged to Christianity. I guess I can’t blame him: since Objectivism’s principles are undeniably true, one could only hope that they were on his side. But Objectivism’s principles are clearly not on any theist’s side. He has to deny them, even though such denial is self-refuting and incoherent.

Meanwhile, Michael’s newly adopted sidekick Nide piped in with the following comment: “These fellows haven’t been reflecting. They need to search their souls. Where the soul is, there you will find God.”

In other words, one must turn the focus of his awareness inward to “find God.” Talk about slips of the tongue! This is a dead give-away that what the Christian calls “knowledge of God” is really just his own imagination. He turns his focus inward, to his imagination, and that is where he “finds God.” But Objectivists have been pointing this out for decades. No wonder Michael’s contempt continues to break the bounds of adult civility in our discussion. He’s performatively making my case for me.

Michael writes: “The impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) matter has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.”

Michael’s false dichotomy here notwithstanding, what the Christian needs to do is demonstrate the objective validity of the notion that matter was created by an act of consciousness. Surely we can imagine this. But imagination is not fact. If Michael has any evidence to support the assumption that matter can be created by an act of consciousness, he is welcome to present it. But if he has no such evidence, then he should come out of the closet on the matter and openly concede that he does not.

As for me, I know of no evidence to support the notion that consciousness can create matter. Which means: I have no legitimate basis to accept such a notion as a distinct possibility. Simply imagining it is not a sufficient basis to accept it as a real possibility, let alone an actual phenomenon. Throughout my discussion with Michael David Rawlings, I have repeatedly pointed out to him that, given its emphatic affirmation and adherence to the primacy of existence, Objectivism explicitly recognizes the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. Michael has consistently avoided interacting with this point, and we should not be surprised by this: Christianity is all about building up phantasm-constructs in the imagination of the believer which compel him through fear and break his spirit as a human being. Without these imagined phantasm-constructs, Christianity is absolutely contentless. So acknowledging the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination will only be fatal to Christian theism. So Michael’s aversion to interacting with this point is to be expected: it’s the one pin-prick that brings the whole artifice of Christianity crashing down on itself.


Inconsistent Metaphysics at the Root of the Christian Worldview

One of the observations I had made in my discussion with Michael is the fact that Christianity cannot maintain a consistent stance on the issue of metaphysical primacy. Above we have already saw Michael’s admission that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence.” He insists that “God’s primacy over existence is absolute.” So Michael admits outright that Christianity affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. The primacy of consciousness is the root of metaphysical subjectivism, since it grants metaphysical primacy to the subject of consciousness in the subject-object relationship. So by affirming the primacy of consciousness, Michael admits that the essence of Christian metaphysics is subjective in nature. It’s a worldview essentially premised on the view that wishing makes it so.

Another Christian commenter, Rick Warden, sought to refute my argument that Christianity affirms the primacy of consciousness by claiming that the dogmatic premise that the Christian god did not create itself can only mean that the primacy of existence is the proper metaphysical orientation of Christianity. Of course, it is easy to see that Warden’s line of argument is a non sequitur: it would not follow simply from the premise that the Christian god did not create itself, that the primacy of existence is thereby consistently affirmed throughout Christianity.

But Warden’s objection did introduce a point which I have made in past writings, namely that even with respect solely to the Christian god, the Christian cannot maintain a consistent metaphysics. The issue here is very simple, and it should not be difficult for Michael or any other Christian to grasp. Keep in mind that Christians say that their god is conscious. So there are two things to consider here: one, the orientation between the Christian god as a subject and anything it is said to have created, such as a flower, as an object of its consciousness; and two, the orientation between the Christian god as a subject and itself as an object of its consciousness. Neither of these considerations should, so far, be controversial for the Christian: the Christian maintains that his god created the flower and has awareness of it, that the flower is an object of his god’s awareness; and Christians typically hold that the Christian god is self-aware, that it can have itself as an object of its own awareness, just as we can. So the Christian should not be protesting the setup of our examination, unless of course he’s afraid of where it may lead and is simply not emotionally prepared for what may come.

Michael’s response to this line of inquiry has consisted of reciting a mantra phrase, namely “divine perfection,” and charging that my line of inquiry does not accurately take into account whatever this is supposed to mean. He says that “the construct of divine perfection… is universally self-evident,” and yet, even if this were true (it’s not; if Michael actually thinks it’s self-evident, it’s because this notion is so entrenched in his imagination that it seems immediate to him; one has direct, introspective awareness of things he imagines), it would not obviate my line of inquiry since the Christian god is still maintained to be conscious of the things it is said to have created as well as of itself.

Indeed, note the line of argument proposed by Rick Warden: Warden insisted emphatically that the primacy of consciousness is not the proper metaphysics of Christianity. This is in direct contradiction to explicit statements made by Michael. In opposed restricted senses, both are correct: on the one hand, Warden is correct that a consciousness not creating itself implies the primacy of existence, though it would not follow from this that other statements about this consciousness are consistent with the primacy of existence; on the other, Michael has affirmed outright that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence” and that “God’s primacy over existence is absolute.” The fact of the matter, however, is that neither of these two Christians can hold the metaphysical position they have affirmed consistently. True, the Christian god is portrayed as a consciousness enjoying metaphysical primacy over the objects it has created: it created the flower, it determined how many petals it has, it determined its quantity of pistols and stamens, it determined when and where it would grow, and how long it would live, etc. So the primacy of consciousness is the metaphysics involved in the subject-object relationship of the Christian god’s consciousness when the object under consideration is something it is said to have designed and created. It is in the context of such a relationship that the Christian god’s wishing makes it so.

But when the Christian god is the object of its own awareness, when the relationship under consideration is that of the Christian god’s self-awareness, as Warden was concerned about, the picture changes fundamentally. Here the Christian cannot maintain the primacy of consciousness, since, as Warden pointed out, Christianity holds that the Christian god did not create itself. And clearly it did not design and create its own nature, whatever that nature might be. Its nature as a “divine perfection” is not something it wished into being at some point. So when the subject-object relationship of the Christian god’s consciousness has itself as its own object of awareness, the primacy of consciousness cannot be maintained. Here the Christian has no choice but to borrow the primacy of existence from the Objectivist and apply it internally within Christianity, where it, too, cannot be consistently maintained.

This metaphysical inconsistency is apart from and in addition to the metaphysical inconsistency we saw above with respect to how the Christian worldview treats human consciousness. Recall above that Michael had insisted that “Nowhere in scripture is it asserted that a finite mind (subject) can have primacy over an existent (object).” And yet, we have already seen sufficient indication “in scripture” where the primacy of consciousness is unmistakably affirmed in the case of human consciousness.

Michael’s belligerent denials and repeated resorting to name-calling on both of these topics can only indicate that he has not fully grasped the issue of metaphysical primacy in terms of the subject-object relationship, which is an open question when any conscious activity is in play, whether that conscious activity is actual (as in the case of human consciousness) or imaginary (as in the case of theism). Or, alternatively, it indicates that he does grasp these points, but resents their implications for his position and consequently finds it necessarily to aim his hostility at those who point it out. Neither alternative justifies his frequent resorting to name-calling and other hostile actions, such as commanding other commenters to “shut up.” Such behavior only suggests that he cannot handle the truth and is frustrated by repeated attempts to confront him with the truth. Nor does such behavior rescue his worldview from the internal collapse of its debilitating stolen concepts.

When I stated that “I really have no idea what an ‘infinite consciousness’ could be,” Michael replied:

Really? Now, were you suffering from this bout of amnesia before or after you premised your argument on it in “Divine Lonesomeness”? that is, before you switched your premise in your futile attempt to make your argument work, a bit subterfuge that evinces a very good understanding of the distinction between them and, thus, their respective identities.”
​

Here Michael is both confused and incoherent. One can cite a notion in an argument while confessing that it really has no meaning, especially when that notion is not native to one’s own position and its meaningless has been shown to be a sufficient reason to dismantle objections raised against that argument which rely on re-affirming the notion in question as though it were conceptually valid. There is no “amnesia” on my part in any of this. My point in the above statement is to emphasize the fact that, from what I know to be true, the notion of an “infinite consciousness” not only has no referent in reality, it is literally incoherent. There really is nothing incongruous between this and earlier statements I’ve made. But Michael, as evidenced by his frequent fits of belligerence and eruptions of name-calling, is clearly in desperation mode, so he’s anxious to turn any statement I make, no matter how incidental or passing, into something it isn’t. Observe:

When I point out that the notion of an “infinite consciousness” is “literally and utterly nonsensical,” Michael replies:

Right. And Aristotle and Moses were buffoons. But tell me something, genius, since you don’t grasp the axiomatic, mathematical necessity of infinity (you know, the pertinent imperative you left out of my argument), how did you refute you the A of divine perfection? Are you saying that you don’t grasp the mathematical axiom and so that’s why you left it out? Or are you imply [sic] that you do get it, but need not directly refute it?
​

See how Michael wants to read much, much more into what I state here? For one, I have never stated that Aristotle was a “buffoon.” This is Michael’s own interpretation – his eisegesis - of my position. Objectivists do not affirm everything attributed to Aristotle in the writings that have survived and have been attributed to him. Objectivists acknowledge that he did not fully extinguish the mystical implications in many ideas that he accepted from his forebears and affirmed in his own teachings. Do Christians affirm everything Aristotle taught or is thought to have taught? Indeed, Nide (who now posts as “Richard” – Michael’s adopted sidekick) has gone on record stating “Aristotle was wrong about much. It always amazes me that people take him seriously.” Is Michael expecting everyone to take everything Aristotle said seriously? I’ve never made such an assertion. Indeed, whence comes Michael’s belligerent attitude?

As for Moses, the character in the Judeo-Christian storybook, there is much in its stories that make him look like a buffoon. Indeed, the bush that was burning on the top of Mt. Sinai must have been cannabis. If Moses really existed as described in those stories, he was just one in a long line of primitive witch doctors. Michael is welcome to worship at his feet if he so chooses.

As for “the axiomatic, mathematical necessity of infinity,” the mathematical use and application of the concept ‘infinity’ in no way assumes or implies that “infinity” is some conscious, transcendent agent that created the universe and has the ability to revise the identities of its contents willy-nilly. The “argument” for such a notion rests on non sequiturs and a hugely false theory of concepts. There is no objective relationship between the concept of infinity as it is used in mathematics and the Christian god whatsoever. And Michael hasn’t shown any. My, how surprising!

With this, we can be assured that the headstone for Michael’s Christianity can be lowered into place. The decomposing cadaver of his worldview has caused quite a stink, but time has come to lower the casket into the bowels of the earth now that the final nail has sealed it shut.

by Dawson Bethrick

 

[orogenicman]

One last thing, Michael. What is your beef with gays?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?

Commonsense. But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong. If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.

Pasteur's maxim stands: Life comes from life.

"Commonsense"?

How silly.

Spoken like a true libtard.

Religious faith falls under the general heading of “feeling” or “spiritual” based doctrine. Genesis – to pick an example, is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence.

That is utter horse shit. There has been plenty of evidence to support Genesis, for example there are several Egyptian rulers who fit the description of joseph, and other examples like the Ark of the Covenant being similar to known Egyptian god carrying devices.

This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim.

Agreed, but so what?

You may “feel” that miracles as depicted in the Bibles are true and inerrant, but I challenge you to provide evidence for any of it.

Three billion people who believe in the same God.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

lol, that you cant explain surely proves it cannot happen, lololol.

It is impossible to have a discussion on this topic with idiots like yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

Commonsense. But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong. If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.

Pasteur's maxim stands: Life comes from life.

"Commonsense"?

How silly.

Spoken like a true libtard.

Gee, he gets political. How quaint.

That is utter horse shit. There has been plenty of evidence to support Genesis, for example there are several Egyptian rulers who fit the description of joseph, and other examples like the Ark of the Covenant being similar to known Egyptian god carrying devices.

None of which is evidence for Adam and Eve, talking snakes, the creation story, or Noah's ark. Next.

Agreed, but so what?

Right, so all of your past creationist arguments have no scientific basis, that's so what.

You may “feel” that miracles as depicted in the Bibles are true and inerrant, but I challenge you to provide evidence for any of it.

Three billion people who believe in the same God.

Argumentum absurdum. How many used to believe in a geocentric universe? Anecdotal evidence is not science, and neither is subjective validation.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

lol, that you cant explain surely proves it cannot happen, lololol.

It is impossible to have a discussion on this topic with idiots like yourself.

And yet here you are.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your article? You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."? That article? Blah, blah, blah.

Yep. That's the one with that very statement, the truth of which you're proving right now. It's also the article that answers all the questions I've asked you.

Now let's get back to the substance:



Not so. I answered your question. You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. That's clear. Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering. We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.

17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis

All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis

polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.

methane (CH4),

methanol (CH3OH),

formaldehyde (HCHO),

cyanoacetylene (HC3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to the pyrimidine cytosine).

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Inorganic building blocks such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

Cytosine
Guanine

These can form under conditions simulating the early Earth, and have been found ion asteroids and the last one has been found in stellar nebulae.

Ah! I missed this. So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?

Good!

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth. More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like.

Let's start here:

"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"

1. And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?

Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

Still avoiding the pertinent issues, I see. Incinerating Presuppositionalism, eh? Are you an Objectivist, orogenicman? LOL!

A word of advice: don't read Objectivism; read real philosophy. Aside from the fundamentals of her political theory which she borrowed from classical liberalism proper, Rand was an idiot savant of psychopathy.

I have no interest in your mumbo-jumbo psychobabble, the psychology that unwittingly presupposes an unfalsifiable, metaphysical naturalism as its premise for abiogenesis and evolution. You foolishly go on affirming the substance of my charge.

Back to the substance: you asserted something about the findings of abiogenetic research. Science, orogenicman, see if you can concentrate on the science.

Answer the questions:

1. How many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

*crickets chirping*

 

[orogenicman]

Yep. That's the one with that very statement, the truth of which you're proving right now. It's also the article that answers all the questions I've asked you.

Now let's get back to the substance:



Not so. I answered your question. You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. That's clear. Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering. We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.



Ah! I missed this. So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?

Good!

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth. More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like.

Let's start here:

"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"

1. And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

2. In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?

Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

Still avoiding the pertinent issues, I see. Are you an Objectivist, orogenicman? LOL!

I have no interest in your mumbo-jumbo psychobabble, the psychology that unwittingly presupposes an unfalsifiable, metaphysical naturalism as its premise for abiogenesis and evolution. You've already demonstrated the fact of my assertion and stupidly go on affirming my charge.

Back to the substance: you asserted something about the results of abiogenetic research. Science, orogenicman, see if you can concentrate on the science, orogenicman.

Answer the questions:

1. How many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

All of them. Why wouldn't they be? They occur in nature, and so are available IN NATURE.

2.In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

*crickets chirping*

They occur in the ocean - in the water, in the ocean floor, and in hydrothermal vents. They occur in meteorites. They occur in stellar nebulae. They occur deep within the Earth, and on its surface. Etc., etc., etc.