There Is No God
Quote: zippyboy
That exact link was posted in the forum long ago. It was exactly what I was thinking about when making my post (I actually used it first, then edited it into the money tower)
Quote: MoscaI'm not a math guy, nor smarter than the average bear. Quoting Wikipedia, because its math stuff is pretty well sorted out,
In the end, I stopped arguing sides in all this stuff because it doesn't matter. It wasn't any fun antagonizing people whom I like, so I dropped it.
Bah. Your Wiki struck me dumb again. Thankfully you went on to explain in common speak and I'm now picking up what you're putting down.
I totally get that argument, and there's not much to say about it. Yeah, God can do whatever and the entire universe could be but 6,000 years old and all our "pre-history" could've been pre-made and placed just so. If one were theist, there's not much to argue.
I suppose this is one of those things I've posted previously in discussions with FrG, the struggle of the atheist mind. I think it's a conflict of two ideas in my head, both which I believe as true, both I believe strongly in, but both sort of contradict each other. On one hand, humans, specifically the human mind, is insanely incredible. Forget the macro of the universe and all it contains, just thinking micro of what is contained in the human mind is one of those things that make me dizzy. Just the activity in the four pounds of gloop behind my eyes, it completely boggles me. I could say "it is the most amazing thing in the history of ever" and not a lie detector in the world could prove I was lying.
On the other hand, when I can kind of get into macro thought and sort of get a grasp on the universe and what it is, I find the idea of humans, of Earth, of our solar system even, to be completely insignificant. When I think of my mind, the same one I just held in such high regards, in relation to everything that has ever existed in the entirety of reality, it seems a cheap parlor trick compared to some of the goings on "out there".
I suppose, as is always the reason for me posting in God threads, that I was looking elsewhere for insight into what griefs me. Perhaps by knowing what God-folk think when posed these questions, I could gain understanding.
That's why I continue to "argue". I don't look at it as antagonizing, because I'm not here to say who is right or wrong. I just enjoy conversing with people different than me.
Quote: FacePerhaps by knowing what God-folk think when posed these questions, I could gain understanding.
Most God-folk don't think at all, thats the problem.
They always quote somebody who has done all
the heavy lifting for them. Try and have a discussion
with a Christian without them mentioning something
they read in the Bible or heard in church. Its impossible.
Even when I was a little kid, none of it ever made any sense to me. My devout grandmother, when something bad would happen and I would hurt, used to say, "Offer it up as a sacrifice to God." And I would wonder, what the heck does that even mean? Nonsense words, to me, even as a kid.
Quote: MoscaAnd I would wonder, what the heck does that even mean? Nonsense words, to me, even as a kid.
In my wifes fam, every time something good happens,
they praise Jesus till the cows come home. But when
something bad happens, they're lost. I often say to
my wife, shouldn't you be blaming god for this? She
says 'shut up' and I drop it..
Those penguins sure know how to instill guilt.
And morality.
Assuming for the moment that the Catholic brand of morality is actually desirable to possess and that guilt is something you want to have as well, is it possible to be moral and guilt ridden without penguins? I think it is.Quote: MrVThere is no god, but a Catholic education trumps public schools.
Those penguins sure know how to instill guilt.
And morality.
There's an assumption about "creators" that may not necessarily be true. That creators are superior to creations.
~
(*line borrowed from "Six Million Dollar Man", of course)
Also, I might add, it seems more likely, at least for the moment, if Earthlings ever travel vast distances of space, it won't be us, but synthetic creations that can last many lifetimes, and they will represent us, long after the people who originally sent them are dead.
There isn't really odds for the spontaneous generation of life, it either happened or it didn't. there is zero evidence that it did happen and plenty of evidence that it didn't, see Louis Pasture. God cares about the fallen humans because we are made in His image, thats an easy one. The Earth that we live on IS probably in or near the center of the universe if the universe is bounded, its quite possible that it is (bounded) although it doesn't really matter theologicaly it would be kind of neat if it was so, see "Anthropic principle". The fact that the cosmos' vastness and smallness is beyond our ken used to trouble me until I realized that the question isn't "why did you make it the size you did?". The real question is "why not?" Oh' bye the way there most likely is no other life in the cosmos. Don't waste your time and my money looking for it, but if I'm wrong (and I'm never wrong)We still should mind our own galactic business as I doubt they're as benevolent as us. Ok now that your questions have been fully answered what are you going to do with it?Quote: FaceQuote: TankoWhat are the odds of the precise amino acids necessary for life somehow all appearing together where only stone previously existed and somehow arranging themselves into a biological form?
What are the odds of that simple biological form figuring out how to replicate itself and creating the precise genes necessary to deliver the instructions for replication in a precise order?
Why did it replicate itself in the first place?
What are the odds of that simple biological form developing a way to metabolize oxygen and nutrients at the same time it was created?
The biological form had to develop all of these abilities simultaneous with its creation or it would quickly perish.
What are the odds of all of these events occurring simultaneously as they had to?
I do not know the answer to these questions.
Due to the odds against their natural occurrence, I do not discount the possibility that a supernatural force caused them to occur.
I love it. Let’s think about this for a second…
What are the odds that life could form randomly? Certainly they’re greater than one in a million, yes? One in a billion? Probably? How about one in a trillion?
Can we simple humans even grasp what one trillion means? Here’s a thought for you…
A dollar bill’s thickness measures ~0.0043 inches. A hundred of them is just .43 inches. A thousand is only 4.3, not even half a foot. But as we keep multiplying by ten, things get out of control. At 100 million, we’re up as high as commercial jets. At 100 billion, we’re looking down at the International Space Station. Once we get to 100 trillion, we’re 28 times further from the Earth than the moon
Could the chances of randomly occurring life be so high as 1 in one hundred trillion? Perhaps it is so. 100 quadrillion?! Can we even possibly fathom the idea? At what number do we start to believe that, hey, maybe there’s a chance? Quintillion?
In just our galaxy alone, there are 100 billion to 1 trillion stars. We’re already reaching the limits of imagination to picture just our backyard. In those 100 billion stars, how many planets circle them? 2? 5? 10? 20? See how fast the numbers are getting out of control?
Now think of this; in just the observable universe, there are an estimated 300 septillion stars. That’s 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That’s 50 TRILLION times 6 BILLION. Can you even imagine such a number? 50 trillion is the approximate number of cells in one human body. 6 billion is the approximate number of humans on the planet. And each and every one of them has any number of planets circling them, planets which could contain life.
Do you understand the grand scale at work here? Even put into terms I can kind of comprehend, I assure you, I still have no idea. All I know is that given such incredible numbers, “life by chance” is a concept I can totally envision.
Given that I cannot even understand what I know (lol), I accept the chance that a power beyond the limits of understanding exists somewhere.
What I can’t understand, and what I’d appreciate if you could explain, is how or why a power responsible for all that I’ve just listed could possibly give a fart in the wind for such a frail, simple, near sighted and close minded being such as a human. And not only give a fart, but also hold in the highest regard. Us. We who have the world, who fight and war and poison, who live our lives in supreme self-centricity, how can we possibly be His greatest creation?
"I love ya, buddy ... now, up on the cross with ya."
Yeah, right.
Uh huh.
God.
You bet.
Quote: EvenBobMost God-folk don't think at all, thats the problem.
They always quote somebody who has done all
the heavy lifting for them. Try and have a discussion
with a Christian without them mentioning something
they read in the Bible or heard in church. Its impossible.
Generalize much?
Quote: onenickelmiracleGeneralize much?
Should I name names?
Quote: AlanMendelsonI believe in God. I just think God is a poor manager. Why does He waste resources on a Hell when it would be easier and better to have everyone do good and end up in Heaven?
He made all of everything. Methinks He cannot waste resources, because they are infinite for Him. Think SimCity cheat codes ;)
Quote: pewOk now that your questions have been fully answered what are you going to do with it?
Keep asking questions, obv.
Quote: pewThere isn't really odds for the spontaneous generation of life, it either happened or it didn't. there is zero evidence that it did happen and plenty of evidence that it didn't, see Louis Pasture.
Pasteur? You do realize that disease causing bacteria are highly evolved and incredibly complex, and beer and milk do not contain all the elements needed for life, right? I can totally understand that a fish didn't suddenly appear because there was water and 02 and some proteins and stuff, but...
Quote: pewThe Earth that we live on IS probably in or near the center of the universe if the universe is bounded, its quite possible that it is (bounded) although it doesn't really matter theologicaly it would be kind of neat if it was so, see "Anthropic principle".
Define near. Earth isn't even near the center of our galaxy. However, I'll give you that one because of what seems like an out. We can only see so far due to light speed, which is why we call it the "observable universe". As such, it seems kind of believable that no matter which way we look, we should be able to see about the same distance away, making the boundary of what we can see equidistant from our viewpoint.
But I have to ask again, out of 300 septillion stars and what must be octillions of planets, what are the odds that we would find ourselves smack in the middle of it all? 1:1 cuz He said so?
Quote: pewOh' bye the way there most likely is no other life in the cosmos. Don't waste your time and my money looking for it, but if I'm wrong (and I'm never wrong)We still should mind our own galactic business as I doubt they're as benevolent as us.
No other life. So we really are it because He decreed it so. A being with such infinite power, who has shown to repeat himself by mixing 90 or so elements into reasonably similar arrangements, felt his pride and joy weren't worth repeating? We can repeat His creation, but He never did? (Well, other than that one time. Adam and Eve, obv)
And we of utmost benevolence, who have, do, and will continue to spend a majority of our wealth on warfare, who live in what can only be described as restrained violence, and have made weapons that won't only destroy our entire world, but destroy it a thousand times over, all not for the purpose of protection, but for the purpose of killing each other. And you cannot believe that a being that has mastered the sciences could possibly be nicer than us?
Quote: Face
I suppose this is one of those things I've posted previously in discussions with FrG, the struggle of the atheist mind. I think it's a conflict of two ideas in my head, both which I believe as true, both I believe strongly in, but both sort of contradict each other. On one hand, humans, specifically the human mind, is insanely incredible. Forget the macro of the universe and all it contains, just thinking micro of what is contained in the human mind is one of those things that make me dizzy. Just the activity in the four pounds of gloop behind my eyes, it completely boggles me. I could say "it is the most amazing thing in the history of ever" and not a lie detector in the world could prove I was lying.
On the other hand, when I can kind of get into macro thought and sort of get a grasp on the universe and what it is, I find the idea of humans, of Earth, of our solar system even, to be completely insignificant. When I think of my mind, the same one I just held in such high regards, in relation to everything that has ever existed in the entirety of reality, it seems a cheap parlor trick compared to some of the goings on "out there".
I suppose, as is always the reason for me posting in God threads, that I was looking elsewhere for insight into what griefs me. Perhaps by knowing what God-folk think when posed these questions, I could gain understanding.
That's why I continue to "argue". I don't look at it as antagonizing, because I'm not here to say who is right or wrong. I just enjoy conversing with people different than me.
Yesterday was a special celebration in honor of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It's a famous image of a heart pierced with thorns and literally on fire in love for all people. It made me think that our brains can lead us to an understanding of God, or some power that created the universe, but ultimately that doesn't matter if this power, force, creator, God doesn't love us and show us that love. The Heart of Jesus shows us that not only does God exist but He loves us.
This is why I think Christianity is unique. There are lots of religions that believe in God who is the all-powerful creator of the universe, but just by creation there is not a lot of proof that God loves us. Yes he gave us life, but there are also tornados and lions in this world that can easily take this precious gift from us. Also a creator God who is like a watchmaker who sets things in motion and leaves or a cheerleader from a distant heaven is not very inspiring or worthy of love. Religion needs Jesus Christ for it to really hold value for me. The idea that God did not only create but become incarnate, became one us, to share in our joys and sorrows, to understand suffering, abandonment, pain, and even death. To teach us by His real example the power of sacrifice, the relationship of prayer, and that love will conquer the worst this broken world can throw at us by the Resurrection. This is not just stuff written in a book or ideas floating down from Heaven, but from a real human being like us who we can identify with, who we can understand, and maybe most importantly can understand us.
I continue to think it is obvious there is a God who is creator of the universe, its a no brainer, however if this God doesn't have a heart that loves His creation He is not worth a second thought. That divine heart of love is real in the person of Jesus Christ.
Quote: FrGamble
I continue to think it is obvious there ...
Do you also continue to think the Tooth Fairy pays you that quarter.
Quote: FrGambleThis is why I think Christianity is unique.
What makes Christianity unique to me is the message of redemption: that there is not a single sin that cannot be truly and completely forgiven. When you follow that to its logical conclusion, it is an incredibly powerful affirmation of life.
FrG, I sent you a PM.
Quote: FleaStiffDo you also continue to think the Tooth Fairy pays you that quarter.
Do you continue to think that quarter comes from nothing and no one put it under your pillow?
Fathers sent their sons off to war since recorded history and probably long before. These sons often died. I think 1/3 (or so) of the men of Europe died during WWI. I still think those fathers loved their sons. Fathers have also sacrificed their sons (and daughters) to the gods as gifts. Yes, the god who had the most sacrifices made to him would be Mars, the god of war.
Historically, the blood sacrifice was the highest honor you could pay a god. Radical Islamists blow themselves up and their mothers and fathers praise them. No doubt they loved their sons.
In the minds of religionists, Jesus’ blood sacrifice was therefore the highest tribute to God. It also saved man from the sin of Adam (and all our sins that stemmed from it) and we were now released from death. (That release is the belief in heaven and the resurrection at the “end of time.”)
I don’t think these sacrifices were made by parents who hated their children. Whether there exists a God or not, the cynicism concerning the motivations of the parents is unwarranted.
As far as the real being real or not, you sound like Bishop Berkeley, a philosopher who also wondered if the real were real.
I do find the attempt to trivialize the discussion about God/No God by referring to the Spaghetti Monster to be silly because some American Indians believed that the world rides on the back of a turtle. Since the turtle is older than spaghetti, you should refer to the Turtle Monster as the creator of the world. Just as silly but at least it has some historical significance.
Quote: FrGamblehowever if this God doesn't have a heart that loves His creation He is not worth a second thought. That divine heart of love is real in the person of Jesus Christ.
It was so hard to see any evidence that god has
a heart that they had to make up a 'savior' to
make it appear god had actual empathy.
Quote: FrankScobleteI do find the attempt to trivialize the discussion about God/No God by referring to the Spaghetti Monster to be silly because some American Indians believed that the world rides on the back of a turtle. Since the turtle is older than spaghetti, you should refer to the Turtle Monster as the creator of the world. Just as silly but at least it has some historical significance.
Interesting post, Frank. I want to address the above quote.
I am American Indian, Seneca of the Iroquois Confederacy. My culture’s creation story is indeed that the world was formed on the back of a turtle, with help of all manner of birds, an otter, a muskrat, etc. As the Seneca do not write their stories but pass them down by the telling of stories, there are many different versions and variables. However, that part remains constant throughout them all. It is a story that has survived much, much longer than any form of Judeo-Christian beliefs and is still being taught today.
Yet you call it silly. Why is that?
I can tell you’re a bright man, so I doubt your reason is “because Bible”. I imagine it is because you can plainly see it for yourself. We’ve seen Earth from above; there is no turtle. We’ve seen Earth from the inside, still no turtle. All of our technological advances have pretty much given us a complete story of what our Earth is and how it was made, and it is accepted by just about everyone.
A great many of the ancient religions have been proven false by these same means. We know Zeus is not casting lightning bolts about. We know Rah is not carting the sun across the sky on a great chariot. No longer do we blame Poseidon for natural disasters, and we know Hades has no bearing on our crops.
We know this because of science. Religion has been a way of answering what could not be answered. As our knowledge has grown, we no longer needed the idea of a sun-toting chariot man. We no longer needed some ethereal being casting lightning bolts about. These characters who served as little more than placeholders for thousands of years were no longer needed. We now had true knowledge and their necessity was no more.
It makes me wonder about modern Christianity. 2,000 years as far as humanity goes, hell, as far as religions go, isn’t very long. But with our seemingly exponential growth in technology and sciences, I wonder if how long it will be until, like every other religion in the past, some discovery will blow it wide open, and all of the beliefs that now serve as placeholders, will no longer be needed.
Then what? Scientology? =/
I do have to say, I love much of the discussions on these pages.
Quote: pewPasture proved that life comes from life, period.
Did he? Isn’t that like saying there are no fish in my cup, ergo fish don’t live in water?
The evolution standpoint, if I remember correctly (it’s been awhile since I’ve dabbled as far back as creation stuff) was that life started as little more than RNA. All of the things necessary for life as we know it, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc, were in much simpler form. They were in small particles such as water, carbon dioxide; things which could be broken down by natural occurrences (lightning, for one), into usable base elements, elements which could reform into more complex structures such as RNA.
What you’re saying is beer/wine/milk and all the complex proteins and sugars contained within are the same as the atmosphere of Earth 10 million years ago, and that complex, evolved bacteria are the same as the smallest building block of life.
Quote: pewOf course God could have created life elsewhere in the universe, the question is, did He? There is zero evidence for life on other planets or anywhere else. If the cosmos is as old as the popular view says and there are as many planets as is thought then it should be obvious if other life exists.
MathExtremist brought up Fermi’s Paradox in another thread; it may do you well to glance over it.
Our reaching into space isn’t even 50 years old yet. At the speeds of our current craft (some 17km/s) it’ll take over 70,000 years just to reach the nearest star. One down, 299,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 to go. Even at light speed, it would still take over 4 years to get there. Light speed to the nearest quasi-galaxy is still in the order of tens of thousands of years to reach.
How or why should evidence of other life be obvious?
Quote: pewThe human race as a whole is a very dangerous species
Dangerously benevolent? I’m starting to lose you lol
Quote: FrankScobleteI agree with what you said. My use of "silly" is my objection to the use of sarcasm to discuss the God/No God issue. The argument by use of "making fun of" just doesn't sit right with me. So I used the turtle idea as my (subtle) use of sarcasm.
I do have to say, I love much of the discussions on these pages.
I dig. Sometimes, though, that sarcasm ends up being challenged and sets of pages of better discussion, just like it has now.
I agree, I (mostly) love these discussions.
I even got FrG back! /wave
Regarding Frank's discussion About fathers sending sons to war:
My Grampa sent three sons to WW II
Uncle Ed and Uncle Tom did not make it back. I know they used their Rosaries to get them through the tough times because i have letters they sent home.
My Dad, Jack, did make it back and was able to have a full life with a family but I know he was in pain from tbe loss.
Gramma and GrAndpa were very faithful even with the loss.
They passed their faith to me and my brothers and sisters
Of course growing up in the sixties, i questioned my faith. But as I get older i have. Come to believe that faith is a. Gift given to me by my uncles.
I dont worry whether others believve the way I do. But you can be sure I will tell my one year old grandson about his Uncles Tom and Ed.
Oh Yes, by the way, our last Name is Ryan!!!
Quote: rudeboyoiTheres much funner makebelieve topics to argue about than religion like zombies and unicorns and such.
I am sticking a clause in my will to have my head severed from my body so I don't come back as a zombie in the future. You don't want to be known as patient zero in zombie outbreaks.
Quote: djatcI am sticking a clause in my will to have my head severed from my body so I don't come back as a zombie in the future. You don't want to be known as patient zero in zombie outbreaks.
sounds like a new service funeral homes can market. "Sever your head and dont come back as the undead!"
Quote: FrankScobleteI agree with what you said. My use of "silly" is my objection to the use of sarcasm to discuss the God/No God issue. The argument by use of "making fun of" just doesn't sit right with me. So I used the turtle idea as my (subtle) use of sarcasm.
I've got to be honest: I've always found comparing the monotheistic God to other fantastic beings is a little bit of a foolish argument. Monotheism isn't really a statement that a being exists, but that something that does exist - the universe - has certain traits it almost certainly does not have.
Quote: 24BingoMonotheism isn't really a statement that a being exists, but that something that does exist - the universe - has certain traits it almost certainly does not have.
You have my attention. Care to elaborate?
... not important.
Pasture proved that life comes from life, period.
Did he? Isn’t that like saying there are no fish in my cup, ergo fish don’t live in water?
The evolution standpoint, if I remember correctly (it’s been awhile since I’ve dabbled as far back as creation stuff) was that life started as little more than RNA. All of the things necessary for life as we know it, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc, were in much simpler form. They were in small particles such as water, carbon dioxide; things which could be broken down by natural occurrences (lightning, for one), into usable base elements, elements which could reform into more complex structures such as RNA.
What you’re saying is beer/wine/milk and all the complex proteins and sugars contained within are the same as the atmosphere of Earth 10 million years ago, and that complex, evolved bacteria are the same as the smallest building block of life............................................................................................................................................................................................................ Yes he did put the final death knell to the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Your just going to have to deal with it. If you can propose any actual experiments to test the spontaneous generation of life please let me know what they are. Miller- Uray doesn't cut it.
If we are the oldest life forms then we're probably the most technologicaly advanced and wouldn't see life in other parts of the universe very easily. I agree. On the other hand if there are wicked way more advanced civilizations out there say on the order of millions or even billions of years worth of technological advancement then it would be easy to observe such a society with the naked eye, and if not, then with our primitive telescopes ect. we have at our disposal today.
Quote: pewYour just going to have to deal with it.
"That's the best part of being an adult. You never have to do anything" - Dr. Greg House
Quote: pewYes he did put the final death knell to the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. [snip]... If you can propose any actual experiments to test the spontaneous generation of life please let me know what they are. Miller- Uray doesn't cut it.
The above is one of two things. Either 1) an atheist sockpuppet purposely trying to make the religious look absurd, or 2) a theist that singlehandedly defines my biggest issue with certain religious persons - close minded arrogance.
Again, please explain how Pasteur put the kaibosh on anything, other than disproving the spontaneous generation of severely complex organisms in a closed system. If I mix together some WD-40, a handful of grass clippings, 2oz of deer blood, and a ground up seat cushion from a 1978 WV Rabbit and it doesn't create a cake, have I disproved the existance of cake? You're arguing that I have.
And I'd ask your thoughts on Miller-Uray. It certainly does not prove or confirm the theory of random creation. But like all of science, it is a step, yet another data point to consider and build off. It certainly showed that the atmosphere of early earth, which was completely poisonous to life as we know it, could be subject to completely natural occurances and generate life giving elements - amino acids, sugars, hydrocarbons. It also showed that not only did he find a clue, but simple advances in our technology revealed a ton more that he missed.
Our knowledge shows no sign of slowing. If anything, it is accelerating by leaps and bounds. Little by little our understanding of reality is being pieced together and new discoveries are happening faster than one can keep up with.
But I should stop asking questions, accept God, and deal with it because something something Pasteur...
Quote: pewOn the other hand if there are wicked way more advanced civilizations out there say on the order of millions or even billions of years worth of technological advancement then it would be easy to observe such a society with the naked eye, and if not, then with our primitive telescopes ect. we have at our disposal today.
Surely you jest.
Wrong again. Now that you've been schooled you have to deal with it. Unfortunately you deal with the facts by denying them. Thats your choice as an adult.
What do you think they would be doing? Contemplating their navels, or even worse, worshiping GOD!Quote: FaceQuote: pewOn the other hand if there are wicked way more advanced civilizations out there say on the order of millions or even billions of years worth of technological advancement then it would be easy to observe such a society with the naked eye, and if not, then with our primitive telescopes ect. we have at our disposal today.
Surely you jest.
Quote: pewWrong again. Now that you've been schooled you have to deal with it. Unfortunately you deal with the facts by denying them. Thats your choice as an adult.
Name one fact that you've provided that I've denied. There are probably a thousand ways to challenge abiogenesis, but you only post "lolPasteur". If you prefer to live in a world where all science stops at 1870 and base all your beliefs off one data point, that is your perogative. But I don't expect I'll have anything else to say about it.
You go on to state that it would be easy to observe advanced life with the naked eye and/or a telescope. This is either a very poor, low level troll, or your understanding of the cosmos is so incomplete that it's not worth discussing further.
If you do have an argument to make, I'd probably be happy to continue. But posting scattered ideas and claiming I've been schooled is hardly stimulating.
"Life comes from life" is settled science.Quote: Face
Name one fact that you've provided that I've denied. There are probably a thousand ways to challenge abiogenesis, but you only post "lolPasteur". If you prefer to live in a world where all science stops at 1870 and base all your beliefs off one data point, that is your perogative. But I don't expect I'll have anything else to say about it.
You go on to state that it would be easy to observe advanced life with the naked eye and/or a telescope. This is either a very poor, low level troll, or your understanding of the cosmos is so incomplete that it's not worth discussing further.
If you do have an argument to make, I'd probably be happy to continue. But posting scattered ideas and claiming I've been schooled is hardly stimulating.
You seem to be denying that fact. Life spontaneously developing from inorganic chemicals is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence please show me the evidence. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Do you think science needs to develop more proof that the earth revolves around the sun too? I think that issue was settled around the sixteen hundreds.
On the technological side, there is the "postage stamp" theory where technologies are only advanced for a length of time. So, for example, we've only been "live" in the universie for about 100 years now since the start of radio transmissions.
We don't know where we are going to be 100 years from now. We could all be gone. We could have annilihated ourselves. We could have been visited by an omniscient far advanced being who just appears and stamps us out like a cloud, kind of like revelations.
So, if technologically advanced societies only last for a few hundred years, what are the odds of us finding that?
If an when we ever discover another advanced civiliization, it will shake this "god" argument to the core.
Quote: pew"Life comes from life" is settled science.
Why? Can you articulate how we get from Pasteur's experiments, showing that life did not form under specific circumstances (under which it had been thought to), to a blanket prohibition on life, of any kind, forming under any circumstances, except by the direct intervention of a human-like intelligence that inexplicably subsists outside our universe?
Quote: boymimboIf an when we ever discover another advanced civiliization, it will shake this "god" argument to the core.
Hard to say. If someone is already willing to accept absent of evidence as a reasonable expectation something is worth believing in, that's a terrible starting point. If you keep finding order in RNG, you're not a good candidate for evidence based belief. (unless you really have stumbled on a fault in rng programming)
People are also very good at reinterpreting religious text, if necessary, if the text is sufficiently vague. And sometimes even if it is not.
Angels are in the Bible. From that, you could probably argue that you knew extraterrestrials were in existence. Text is "revealed" to believers.
Quote: pew"Life comes from life" is settled science.
You seem to be denying that fact. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Do you think science needs to develop more proof that the earth revolves around the sun too? I think that issue was settled around the sixteen hundreds.
Again, you’re throwing idea fragments out as if they were all encompassing fact. Please explain how it’s “settled science”.
It seems that you’ve taken the results of one man experimenting in one small time frame and tried to paint those results over all of existence, results which have been shown to not to apply to this situation. Surely you can see that is folly, yet it has been your only argument.
Quote: pewLife spontaneously developing from inorganic chemicals is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence please show me the evidence
Said evidence doesn’t entirely exist yet. The key part of that sentence is “yet”
This scientific pursuit of the origination of life has been going on for hundreds of years. Many ideas existed, and a great many have been proven false. Things like heterogenesis (bees from flowers, mice from hay) are laughable today. But all of them were required to get where we want to go – The Answer.
Testing and proofs of even the wacky ideas have given us insight, each failure pointing us in the direction toward The Truth. Even Pasteur’s work, which you look at as nullifying abiogenesis, to me served to focus the idea further, leaving us with our current theories. The works of Pasteur and Darwin, of Miller-Urey, of Eigen and Spiegelman, of Wächtershäuser, are all resulting in discovery. While none of them are The Answer and all of them reveal more questions than answers, they all make the idea of abiogenesis plausible.
I don’t know that abiogenesis is the answer, but the ideas and the findings thus far are believable to me. The only other option I’ve heard proposed is “magic happened” ie goddidit.
I’ll stick with science.
Quote: rxwineHard to say.
I think it would, at least as it is currently believed.
If something like abiogenesis was proved, there goes the ballgame. If we “just happened”, it completely blows the concept of souls to bits. It blows the concept of creation to bits. It’d be a spear of Logic to the heart of superstition, and current “modern” religions would go the way of the ancient myths.
I have little doubt that it will happen. In fact, I’m betting my eternal life on it. But I’d also bet that another religion will pop up in its place. Hell, it might even be Scientology that does it. It just has to contain beliefs that can’t be proven at that time.
One thing I would definitely bet on is that religion in some form will always exist. Humanity as a whole seems to be unwilling to accept finite life and cannot handle death. I’ve no reason to believe that fact will ever change, and perhaps it is better off that we are made that way.
My pal louies' work on micro-organisms was the end of the idea that living things come from non living things. that is a fact that is as observable and repeatable as the sun setting in the west and is why I mention him. It's like saying Galileo put the final nail in the coffin of geocentrism, I'm sorry about any misunderstanding. I'm kinda new to forum posting but am enjoying the mental exercise and would like to have dialog as opposed to an argument.Quote: 24BingoWhy? Can you articulate how we get from Pasteur's experiments, showing that life did not form under specific circumstances (under which it had been thought to), to a blanket prohibition on life, of any kind, forming under any circumstances, except by the direct intervention of a human-like intelligence that inexplicably subsists outside our universe?
Quote: pewMy pal louies' work on micro-organisms was the end of the idea that living things come from non living things.
But it wasn’t, at least not in the context of this conversation. I don’t know how else I can explain it without sounding disrespectful.
Quite simply, the conditions in which Pasteur conducted his tests were in no way similar to that of early Earth. Pasteur tested on broths, milk, beer, wine; things with a very complicated and intricate chemical makeup. All he did was blow air over them and see if anything grew. Nothing did. He proved that microorganisms did not appear by way of magic.
Early Earth was awash in methane, CO2, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and these things were broken down to reform the early stages of life. This is in no way similar to anything Pasteur worked with. It was exposed to extreme heat in the form of volcanic activity and lightening strikes. It was subjected to extreme radiation as the ozone did not exist. To compare Pasteur’s experiments to what is thought to have happened in the early days of Earth makes zero sense at all. That is not science in any sense of the word. The only way you can link the two is they were both looking for the same thing. Other than that, there’s not a single relation.
Quote: pewAbiogenesis is something that would have happened once and is an anomaly
How so?
Let’s assume for a moment that abiogenesis is true. The components of early Earth get broken down by natural causes and reform into the building blocks of life, which bond into replicating forms, evolution plays its part, etc. The original step, the breaking down and reforming, would be happening millions of times simultaneously. It’s not a scientist taking a piece and mixing it with another piece one by one. It’s a lightening strike blowing billions if not trillions of molecules to pieces in the snap of a finger, and all of those pieces reforming into what they will. Lightening was an ever present phenomenon in early earth, so millions of billions of these “experiments” went on for millions and billions of years.
The experiments that have given some credibility to abiogenesis consist of a handful of people shooting a light spray through a spark. Said experiments have yielded hundreds of compounds necessary for life. What happened on early Earth was trillions of trillions of times larger in scale.
Is it so unlikely?
Quote: pewWe really should admit the religious nature of our world view whatever it may be.
I don't think abiogenesis has sent any message at all from the supernatural world.
All information about it whether speculation or not is worldly and made by humans about it.
These other claims hardly adhere to that limitation.
Quote: pewAbiogenesis is something that would have happened once and is an anomaly which makes the hypothesis of life coming from chemical evolution a question of history, philosophy, theology ect., not testable and repeatable like regular physical science. This makes it a belief and a religious belief at that. The experiments that have been carried out (by highly intelligent humans) have to my knowledge not produced life. I would very much like to see some evidence other than "well we're here so we had to have evolved cause obviously there's no god that could have done it". Which is a "God statement" in itself. We really should admit the religious nature of our world view whatever it may be.
The very fact that an experiment on reproducing abiogenesis failed is proof that it's testable and is a question suited to science. Religion is entirely orthogonal. Not only can you not test true religious beliefs, but they're really not suited to answering "how" questions anyway. Religion should be about answering why. Science is about what and how. This dichotomy between "if science doesn't have the answers, then that means God did it" is not only a false dichotomy but denigrates what religion should be about. What happens when science someday does have all the "how" answers? What would that mean for religion then, if you conflate them? If your faith in God requires abiogenesis to be a one-time event, what happens if a scientist replicates it in a lab? Do you renounce God?
Ancient Greeks worshiped Helios, the god of the sun, who carried it across the sky each day in a chariot. How would they have responded to a photograph like this?
(The Earth and Sun from the ISS.)
The religions of the Ancients disappeared because they were too focused on the what and how -- what happens when the sun sets, what makes rain fall, etc. Religious beliefs like "the sun is carried across the sky on a chariot" are easy to disprove with rational inquiry and sufficient technology, and when we figured out that our planet was spinning, Helios became unnecessary.
A key feature of Western religion is that it usually separates itself from disprovable facts. God is supposed to be ineffable. That's why Intelligent Design is such a step backwards. It attempts to insert a disprovable theory into what is otherwise a faith-based belief structure, cheapening it. Religion helps a lot of people deal with big questions of why, but it no longer needs to stretch to answer how. By attempting to tie faith in God to the question of how life originated, the proponents of Creationism or Intelligent Design risk the likely future where science actually does have the answer to the origin of life, and then God goes the way of Helios.
