I guess we can all agree that the US government is out of control.
Except Americans, apparently, who treat the election like a fucking Superbowl. But they can now look forward to "the reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong." (source: http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/library/socialism.html)
EDIT: Here's a little bonus. It's the cure for cancer:
The topics that matter are precisely the ones that erupt in flames at the slightest spark. They're heated because there's so much at stake.
So, the NDAA that Obama passed in 2011 allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely anywhere in the world with no trial. I think it's a shitload of fuck.
What if the "original life" was a proto-cell? What if both abiogenesis
and god exist?
Proto-cells, a hypothetical that has yet to be observed but close-at-hand all the same? It's abiogenesis all over again. Regardless, it looks like life to me.
No one is saying abiogenesis would disprove God.
Quote:
I still see no evidence for your claims or proof that
there has to be "original life", whatever the heck that is.
No proof that there has to be "original life," just a lack of evidence to the contrary.
I already explained it to you once and you ignored it. Quantum mechanics
is a complete theory. It's not intuitive because we don't live on the
quantum level, which only means that you're supposed to have some
humility and recognize that your common sense view does not necessarily
have to reflect reality. The universe can still work just fine with
non-determinism. QM has proved that.
You gave me two examples of causeless effects. One of which is directly referred to as phenomena. Both of which are new arrivals in the scientific world. Case closed on QM? You'd be as well-served closing the case on gravity. No cause for gravity by reason of consensus!
Quote:
Alright, going by your logic, all the life that we've seen had its own
progenitor. So who created god?
A simple question that we've been asking for pages but nobody can give a
straight answer for.
So you mean to say "no one did" isn't a straight answer.
If whoever created us isn't God, they had to have been created.
Atheism does not require abiogenesis. That's flat out retarded and doesn't even make sense. Atheists have been around for tens of thousands of years. Do you sincerely think they all believed in abiogenesis?
Whatever atheists didn't take atheism to its foregone conclusion, as you aren't at present, has no bearing on the argument, "retarded wand" waving notwithstanding.
Quote:
I insist God requires a creator because you insist the universe requires a creator. It's that simple.
Based on our current understanding, the universe doesn't require a creator. It's the life inside it that does.
Abiogenesis is not one of a thousand perspectives, it is the modern iteration of one of two possibilities. Without abiogenesis, there has to be original life, always. For original life to have always been requires God. Therefore, atheism requires abiogenesis.
Quote:
What makes you think I need an explanation about how life originated? I
don't know the answer to that question, I might never know the answer to
that question, and whatever it might be is completely irrelevant to my
ability to state that Christianity has not proven it's claims.
Everything here is correct but it doesn't address my argument, which is simply...
Quote:
they don't think too deeply into what baggage comes with there being a creator
...that God's existence requires the least amount of "baggage." You only think otherwise by your insistence that he had to have been created, instead of always being there.
No, atheism requires nothing. Atheism is not an alternate view of how
life came to be. Atheism is the rejection of religious claims.
Early Christians were called atheists because they rejected pagan gods.
Are you suggesting early Christians "believed" in abiogenesis too?
Right, and the rejection of all religious claims renders life impossible without abiogenesis.
It's patently false to call a Christian an atheist by definition of the word. I'm not calling Muslims, Hindus, etc. atheists so I'm not following your analogy.
Nonsense. Atheism, evolution and abiogenesis are not linked at all.
Also to think that I reject your god is arrogant. It's your claims that
I reject.
Atheism requires abiogenesis for life to exist. The basis of my argument is that as long as there's no reason to subscribe to abiogenesis, there's no reason to subscribe to atheism.
Mind, I'm arguing for the logic of theism, not Christianity. My reasoning for being a Christian is a different matter entirely.
Good point. But god never really come into the picture does he? Only the
disapproval of god, never the approval and the disapproval of god is the
same as the removal of not knowing, the diffrence is sentiments isn't
it? Back to the point of why god makes a terrible hypothesis i would
like to add what i have said before; that you can't ask questions about
god.
The "God hypothesis" is squarely reserved for the beginning of all things, the "question to end all questions." Of course it's useless for everything else because you wouldn't get anything accomplished.
[...] It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter
how baseless is preferable to God. [...]
A god is not a good scientific hypothesis for very obvious reasons. If i
were to blame a phenomena on god, how would i go about conducting
experiments to find out? Normally i would try to fit in diffrent models
but with a god i would just stand there and say "Meh, god did it." with
every experiment, you just kind of give up on curiosity.
How? The same way an atheist would. Contrary to what popular culture says you don't lose your eyes and ears when you become a theist.
And then you must simply ask "Who spontaneously generated God?"
I know. That's the conundrum I was talking about earlier, and the only thing that resolves it is a God that always was. It's not an unassailable argument, it's the only argument (until someone comes up with an alternative). A God-shaped hole, if you will.
How does it follow that understanding the universal order behind rain, tectonic plates, supernovas, et al, confirms that these aren't God's doings? It doesn't.
Quote:
Atheism is nothing. I listen to Christianity's claims, and go "prove
it". They can't, so I don't believe them.
For some reason this has a name.
Atheism isn't nothing. It answers the absence of abiogenesis with the speculation that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter how baseless is preferable to God. This is why it has a name, because it has all the same warts as any other school of thought devised by imperfect man. They're just located in the private areas.
Yeah, it's just a succinct way of saying "life from non-living raw materials." In abstract terms, a torch that was not lit by another torch. A single cell created in a lab would constitute as such.
You demand to see "spontaneous generation of life" before you'll believe
it. However you're quite happy believing in a god without seeing it.
You, sir, are a hypocrite.
I demand to see it because without spontaneous generation, God must exist.
To put it another way, the nature of life itself supplants atheism's self-appointed designation as "the most logical position." It's not stupidity in motion, you're just covering your metaphorical ears and going LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA
You realise that the fact every known life-form can be traced via it's
progenitors CONFLICTS with the bible's view of literal creation of all
species, right?
??? The first bloody sentence speaks of an original progenitor...
Quote:
I presume your choice to dodge the question via semantics means that
you've seen 0. With that in mind, don't bother using "I've never seen
abiogenesis, so it can't happen" when you've not seen the alternative
happen either. "I don't know" is a perfectly respectable stance to take.
Making shit up, less so.
It's more about answering a disingenuous question in kind.
But I'm not dodging anything. I'm answering your question, repeatedly. Until we ascertain an exception to the "golden rule," our current understanding of life necessitates original life, everywhere, always. I'm invoking the collective public understanding of biology, stop accusing me of "making shit up."
So you're saying that in the past 50-60ish years since the discovery of
DNA, and the past few decades of incorporating electron microscopy and
computational analysis to study cells and genetic material were more
than enough time to prove abiogenesis?
So, how long did it take for humans to discover that the earth wasn't
the center of the universe? Let's arbitrarily count time from 0 BC (you
could start counting from 3000 BC or even 10000 BC), well, in 50 AD,
humans still thought the earth was the center of the universe, so I
guess 50 years was long enough to show otherwise? I guess all the
discoveries made some 1500 years later was all a bunch of BS? :\
Nonetheless, the burden of proof lies with the abiogenesists. I thought for sure I was being quite diplomatic this time in welcoming their efforts!
I think we've finally reached some kind of breakthrough. Cookie to
Eiviyn and Gradius, a silent-but-smelly fart to EW and TheZizz.
Round two, commence!
Just noticed this. WTF?
When I stop talking to someone it isn't an admission of defeat. It means they're either resorting to useless sarcasm/double-talk, or our arguments are one-and-the-same and thus irreconcilable (ie. How is invoking the universal order anything but a point for theism?).
Or is the scoreboard factoring in posters' entertainment value? I tell you one thing, the only losers are the ones who aren't taking the topic seriously.
EDIT: Yeah, no cookie for FDFederation, who makes the most intelligent and relevant points out of any of the atheists (and probably theists but I only skim those, sorry my bros much love <3), and pretty much the only one who seems to understand the nuances of the theist position. What a wash. Your metric is what smells.
So essentially what you're saying is "Until I see it, I get to make shit
up"?
No. I'm saying when you've got zillions of known lifeforms that were birthed from progenitors vs. zero known life forms that were created without progenitors, it's a matter of basic arithmetic which is the more logical position.
Quote:
Also, how many creators have you observed recently?
I can't personally verify the numbers but on the human side I'm told 7+ billion. Non-human creators (approximately 1.7 million different species) are almost certainly in the trillions.
Interesting theories, and I particularly like Darwin's imagery. But, there's been ample time to reproduce these sterile conditions. Show me the money, as they say.
An entity that can create universes must be complex. Complexity requires
an explanation. You are simply deferring the question from "Where did
the universe come from?" to "Where did the creator of the universe come
from?".
You do not get a free pass to skip this question with some "it was
always there" nonsense. If you are satisfied with that answer, then why
bother with gods at all and just proclaim the universe "was always
there"?
You are at best delaying the question, and at worst special pleading.
Until we observe an instance of spontaneous generation, the existence of life necessitates a living creator.
0
Except Americans, apparently, who treat the election like a fucking Superbowl. But they can now look forward to "the reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong." (source: http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/library/socialism.html)
EDIT: Here's a little bonus. It's the cure for cancer:
0
The topics that matter are precisely the ones that erupt in flames at the slightest spark. They're heated because there's so much at stake.
So, the NDAA that Obama passed in 2011 allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely anywhere in the world with no trial. I think it's a shitload of fuck.
0
Proto-cells, a hypothetical that has yet to be observed but close-at-hand all the same? It's abiogenesis all over again. Regardless, it looks like life to me.
No one is saying abiogenesis would disprove God.
No proof that there has to be "original life," just a lack of evidence to the contrary.
You gave me two examples of causeless effects. One of which is directly referred to as phenomena. Both of which are new arrivals in the scientific world. Case closed on QM? You'd be as well-served closing the case on gravity. No cause for gravity by reason of consensus!
So you mean to say "no one did" isn't a straight answer.
If whoever created us isn't God, they had to have been created.
0
Without [the antithesis of original life, always], there has to be original life, always.
Explain the rationale behind espousing "no cause" over "heretofore unknown cause."
Whatever atheists didn't take atheism to its foregone conclusion, as you aren't at present, has no bearing on the argument, "retarded wand" waving notwithstanding.
Based on our current understanding, the universe doesn't require a creator. It's the life inside it that does.
0
Abiogenesis is not one of a thousand perspectives, it is the modern iteration of one of two possibilities. Without abiogenesis, there has to be original life, always. For original life to have always been requires God. Therefore, atheism requires abiogenesis.
Everything here is correct but it doesn't address my argument, which is simply...
...that God's existence requires the least amount of "baggage." You only think otherwise by your insistence that he had to have been created, instead of always being there.
The next time you ask someone "What's so different about Christianity?" or "Why Christianity and not X or Y?" refer to this article for starters.
0
Right, and the rejection of all religious claims renders life impossible without abiogenesis.
It's patently false to call a Christian an atheist by definition of the word. I'm not calling Muslims, Hindus, etc. atheists so I'm not following your analogy.
0
Atheism requires abiogenesis for life to exist. The basis of my argument is that as long as there's no reason to subscribe to abiogenesis, there's no reason to subscribe to atheism.
Mind, I'm arguing for the logic of theism, not Christianity. My reasoning for being a Christian is a different matter entirely.
The "God hypothesis" is squarely reserved for the beginning of all things, the "question to end all questions." Of course it's useless for everything else because you wouldn't get anything accomplished.
0
How? The same way an atheist would. Contrary to what popular culture says you don't lose your eyes and ears when you become a theist.
0
I know. That's the conundrum I was talking about earlier, and the only thing that resolves it is a God that always was. It's not an unassailable argument, it's the only argument (until someone comes up with an alternative). A God-shaped hole, if you will.
How does it follow that understanding the universal order behind rain, tectonic plates, supernovas, et al, confirms that these aren't God's doings? It doesn't.
Atheism isn't nothing. It answers the absence of abiogenesis with the speculation that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter how baseless is preferable to God. This is why it has a name, because it has all the same warts as any other school of thought devised by imperfect man. They're just located in the private areas.
0
@Hookah604: Go
Yeah, it's just a succinct way of saying "life from non-living raw materials." In abstract terms, a torch that was not lit by another torch. A single cell created in a lab would constitute as such.
0
I demand to see it because without spontaneous generation, God must exist.
To put it another way, the nature of life itself supplants atheism's self-appointed designation as "the most logical position." It's not stupidity in motion, you're just covering your metaphorical ears and going LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA
0
??? The first bloody sentence speaks of an original progenitor...
It's more about answering a disingenuous question in kind.
But I'm not dodging anything. I'm answering your question, repeatedly. Until we ascertain an exception to the "golden rule," our current understanding of life necessitates original life, everywhere, always. I'm invoking the collective public understanding of biology, stop accusing me of "making shit up."
Nonetheless, the burden of proof lies with the abiogenesists. I thought for sure I was being quite diplomatic this time in welcoming their efforts!
Just noticed this. WTF?
When I stop talking to someone it isn't an admission of defeat. It means they're either resorting to useless sarcasm/double-talk, or our arguments are one-and-the-same and thus irreconcilable (ie. How is invoking the universal order anything but a point for theism?).
Or is the scoreboard factoring in posters' entertainment value? I tell you one thing, the only losers are the ones who aren't taking the topic seriously.
EDIT: Yeah, no cookie for FDFederation, who makes the most intelligent and relevant points out of any of the atheists (and probably theists but I only skim those, sorry my bros much love <3), and pretty much the only one who seems to understand the nuances of the theist position. What a wash. Your metric is what smells.
0
No. I'm saying when you've got zillions of known lifeforms that were birthed from progenitors vs. zero known life forms that were created without progenitors, it's a matter of basic arithmetic which is the more logical position.
I can't personally verify the numbers but on the human side I'm told 7+ billion. Non-human creators (approximately 1.7 million different species) are almost certainly in the trillions.
Interesting theories, and I particularly like Darwin's imagery. But, there's been ample time to reproduce these sterile conditions. Show me the money, as they say.
0
Until we observe an instance of spontaneous generation, the existence of life necessitates a living creator.
0
“Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.'" - Terence McKenna