wynn
What about me do you find that makes me a theist in your eyes?
The theism within what you say is pretty obvious, the reaction to what I said about the Bible's miracles was one that one would expect from a theist. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... It really doesn't make a difference if the duck calls itself another name, it's still a duck. Theism or atheism is not bestowed by what one calls themselves(for whatever purpose), it is inherent in the ideas one espouses. You espouse the ideas of a theist(when we can get you to express anything at all, that is).
Do you know any such theists, or, better yet, do you know any established theistic traditions whose doctrine states that life arose from non-life?
Deism and Spinozism are just two that come to mind. Besides, what does it matter what religions believe to be true if it has been evidenced that they are wrong?
So what does an atheist mean by "I don't believe in God"?
Depends on which god your speaking of. I don't believe in Spinoza's or a Deist's god simply because I don't think he is neccessary, not because there is evidence that contradicts what followers of that god say is true(in fact, believers in Spinoza's god agree with me that what science says about the Universe is valid, including life arising from non-life). If you are speaking of a fundamentalist's claims about god, we're talking a whole 'nother can of worms.
But, generally, an atheist just does not accept any god claims, whatever the specifics of the particular species.
Originally Posted by wynn
Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
Try to really, seriously believe that. ”
and it was meant as a request, a request for an experiment.
I don't know how many people did it, or what they found.
And clearly, the word "chaotic" was used in context, and it's clear from the context what "chaotic" was intended to mean (ie. in the ordinary dictionary sense).
You know, I gave a very detailed response and got nothing back from you. In the context of the word chaotic you are using, the Universe is not chaotic. It is ordered, predictable(to the limit of our understanding of initial conditions), regular and rational and no one knows if it is all there is. As to ageing, illness and death, it applies to everything that lives, no exceptions.
And clearly, the word "chaotic" was used in context, and it's clear from the context what "chaotic" was intended to mean (ie. in the ordinary dictionary sense).
Actually you have been railing against the chaos that scientists say is a component of the Universe, so you are talking about what scientists mean by chaos, not the simplistic definition you gave.
I hope(with some reason)that they succeed within your lifetime in producing life from jars of chemicals. It's quite likely to happen, you know. In the mean time I hope you remain as ignorant of the facts as you have shown yourself to be, a good bout with major cognitive dissonance might help pry your head from where it is so firmly esconched.
Oh, the faith! The faith!
Faith-belief without evidence. And I did not say I believe it will happen in his lifetime, I said I hope it does. As to being likely, I don't need faith, I have evidence that shows it is likely. There's no magic component that makes life different from the same pile of chemicals that is not alive. Life is a complex chemical reaction that occurs within those chemicals, no different in kind that any other chemical reaction. It is the complexity and structure of the reactions that is the difference.
lightgigantic
I think you would be hard challenged to indicate a single model that isn't based on the idea of it rising spontaneously.
Panspermia, at least as far as life on Earth is concerned. Life may have existed in this Universe for as long as the chemicals which make it up have existed and been spread throughout the Universe(including to Earth)by the natural forces of the Universe. Our whole solar system was formed from the debris of at least one, and probably several, generations of stars.
Either way, you don't see any indication that the creation of life is simply a problem of technical application (as opposed to the numerous atheist ideas hell bent to suggest otherwise)
Yes, we do see that life is a natural part of the Universe and we do have copious evidence that it is no different in kind to any other natural chemical reaction. Understanding life is an excersize in understanding the complexity and structure of it's chemical reactions(a technical thing), not trying to understand it's basic chemistry(we've got a good(but not yet complete)understanding of that).
I don't see how this addresses the point of regressing the question of the origin of life by having a universe already existing with god
Not to mention the infinite regress of who/what created that god. It is no more irrational than saying "god did it".
You were suggesting that an explanation of the universe and its origins, maintenance and ultimate destruction has no necessary requirement for god.
There is no evidence to base any other conclusion on. If you have any explanation you think neccessarily needs a god to be rational, bring it. By the way, the evidence indicates that there will be no ultimate destruction of the Universe. "Heat Death" is not destruction, it is just the end of usable energy, the matter will continue even if it all falls into Black Holes(which, if the Universe is designed at all, is what it was designed to produce. It is what it is best at.).
You also suggested that an explanation of the universe and its origins, maintenance and ultimate destruction has no necessary requirement for occurring on the backdrop of chaos (or chance interactions giving opportunity to manifest due to the sheer number of statistical opportunities afforded) .
Neither you, nor wynn has a clue about what science says chaos is. You both should probably either educate yourselves or avoid the subject altogether. And you both ignore the explanations we have given you, rejecting those explanations to reset to your personal misunderstanding and misrepresentations in the next post. This is why you are considered...unresponsive and dishonest in the tactics you use. We don't need any more strawmen, you've already populated the thread with dozens(as we have pointed out to you ad nauseum).
My point being, that the role afforded to god by the theist is the same sort of role afforded to forces of chance by the atheist .... Hence its from this point forward that the two world views diverge in terms of what they anticipate/predict.
Not chance, probability. Life arose because of the laws of the Universe acting on the matter within it. Even many theists agree and science shows it likely to be true. While there is an element of chance, it is actually only a small part. The probability that life would arise on Earth and lead to your existence is close to unity(there's always that small sliver of probability that we are all a computer program running in somebody's den). It happened. The probability that a particular atom 4.5 billion years ago would end up as part of your nose is nearly infinitely small. Neither the high nor the low probability of these two related things makes a bit of difference to the fact that it happened(though it does inform us). And chance plays it's role whether or not a god exists, it is not a replacement for god. I can't replace things I have no evidence of in the first place. The default is what you can show evidence of.
Having claimed previously that you have an adequate education in theistic matters, do you really need me to explain this or are you simply being rhetorical?
Having heard and discussed many different claims it is reasonable to pin down the particular claims you are being so coy about. Do you come back to life inside a cow? Or are 72 virgins waiting for you? Do you go to the Big Spaghetti Dinner in the Sky?
Then I guess you have to explain why it appears that the further in history one goes, the more numerous, speculative and often contradictory they become.
For instance compare models of abiogenesis on earth to models of the very early universe to models beyond the big bang.
We see a clear progression of scenarios that shaped the current consequences as we know them becomes more murkier the further one travels down the chain of cause and effect.
Its what one would naturally expect since the information tends to J curve off into being completely a guess the further back in time we go.
This is not just apples and oranges, this is a whole fruit salad.
In Cosmology we have the advantage that we can directly observe and measure the past almost all the way back to the Big Bang. About the history of life on Earth the evidence can be weighed in tons(literally), but the further back the less evidence we have. And beyond 900 million years are so there is very little because bacteria really don't normally leave fossils(but where do you think petroleum comes from, or chalk?)though we do have fossil stromatilites over 3.5 billion years old. As to pre BB theories, you are right, they are largely guessing, but they are educated guesses guided by math, they just can't be tested.
The amount of time life is guessed to have existed on earth plays little or no bearing on the guesses about the nature of the universe being infinite or finite
It is not a guess, it is a measurement based on the half lives of radioactive isotopes(there are over 40 different radioactive clocks). And the beginning of the Universe is an observed fact, therefore it cannot ever be infinite.
Guesses are for those too ignorant to actually look at the evidence, evidence removes the ignorance. I can guess how tall you are or how much you weigh, or I can measure both parameters and have no need of guessing. We have measured the time that has passed since molecules were incorporated into the stromatolites that seem to be the oldest known lifeforms and we find the time that has passed is over 3.5 billion years. We can measure the distance to the furthest visible object and we find it is over 13.5 billion light years, and since light takes one year to travel one light year the furthest things we see are 13.5 years in the past. The only thing beyond that is the Cosmic Microwave Background which is all that remains of the flash of the BB. It is evidence and reason that leads to these conclusions, if they are in error it is evidence and reason that will indicate that.
my point is that the guesses that surround the nature of the earth's atmosphere are sufficient to render the problems of evidencing abiogenesis unregenerate
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time? Those guesses lead to testing that indicates which guesses are more likely to be correct. This removes it from the guess column into the educated guess column, further evidence can then be looked for, leading to firmer conclusions. We don't have enough information to have firmer conclusions on many things, sometimes "We don't know" is the only valid answer. But that doesn't mean "god did it", you would have to go through the same process on that guess, too.
Or maybe its the guesses that surround the chronology of abiogenesis that are sufficient to render the problems of evidencing abiogenesis unregenerate
They aren't guesses, life existed on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago. Life began within that one billion year window. Those are scientific facts based on scientific measurement(you know, like rulers are). Believe whatever you like, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Or maybe its the guesses that surround understanding the base inanimate requirements for abiogenesis that are sufficient to render the problems of evidencing abiogenesis unregenerate
We have a pretty good, but not exhaustive, understanding about how life incorporates non-living matter into living matter, it's the complexity that is the biggest problem in understanding how the chemical reactions began. Fortunately, like the Japanese after WW2, we have lots of examples to reverse engineer on.
If it appears that science is commonly confused with atheism its because atheists commonly cite scientific models (that are nothing more than models and guesses) to lend credibility to their reasoning.
So, atheists base their worldviews on what can be evidenced, IE reality. And that is a bad thing how, exactly? Beats magical thinking by a long shot. It also explains why the vast majority of scientists are atheists.
We're starting to see a trend here...more education and more knowledge lead to less mysticism and less magical thinking. A fairly good synopsys of the last few centuries of human civilization. Plato based all of his knowledge on guesses, and argued that that was valid. Scientists base their conclusions on evidence, build their models(theories)on that evidence and test those models against the evidence, they don't guess. That you seem unable or unwilling to understand that changes nothing.
Actually what we can see is that many scientists have a deep commitment to the notion that life derives from matter ..... yet they admit that they can’t produce the evidence to corroborate their convictions due to being besieged with unregenerate problems. They’re convinced that life arose from matter /is reducible to matter, yet at the same time they must confess to having limited scientific grounds for their conviction.
That is just a lie, whether from ignorance or prejudice against the facts. And your constant repeating of that lie...you do the math.
Grumpy
