Atheists Favorite Argument

[Argent]

Question, have you not read any of the available literature on the subject of abiogenesis?

I am aware. It is a hypothesis that has been neither proved or disproved having never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I am aware. It is a hypothesis that has been neither proved or disproved having never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.

Uh, no. Abiogenesis is a fact. Once there was no life, the there was life. Abiogenesis is just the name given to the process that connects these two states.

 

[Argent]

Uh, no. Abiogenesis is a fact. Once there was no life, the there was life. Abiogenesis is just the name given to the process that connects these two states.

It is the theory that life evolved from non living matter such as that proposed by the Miller-Urey experiment similar to Oparin-Haldane theory. Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids. I'm unaware of any experiments conducted via scientific method that proves either theory. Please post links to such if you have them because I enjoy reading about this stuff.

 

[Gordy327]

It is the theory that life evolved from non living matter such as that proposed by the Miller-Urey experiment similar to Oparin-Haldane theory. Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids. I'm unaware of any experiments conducted via scientific method that proves either theory. Please post links to such if you have them because I enjoy reading about this stuff.

Amino acids combine to form proteins which then forms nucleic acid, and subsequently, life. Amino acids is the first chain in that event. Such experients show the plausibility of how life originated under the conditions of the time. It's fascinating indeed.

 

[DrewPaul]

There is no "evidence aganst" your claim. Certainly not evolution. There is simply evidence that our universe is a physical, deterministic system that follows natural laws. And by evidence, I mean all the information ever collected.

All of that can be true, and still it is not evidence that rainbow unicorns DID NOT make the universe out of their own poop. A claim, by the way, that goes on and is on the same shelf as your claim.

You once again mangle the concept of evidence.

No I don't I use it as defined. Tell me all about your counter theory.

There is simply evidence that our universe is a physical, deterministic system that follows natural laws

What are natural laws? Why did the laws of physics turn out to be what was needed for life to exist? Natural laws didn't care or intent planets, stars, galaxies, gravity, black matter, black energy to exist correct? The last thing natural laws (mindless forces) cared about is if the exacting conditions for intelligent life to exist. Or am I wrong did nature want intelligent life to exist? There was a scientist who proposed we live in a symbiotic universe. I don't think he got far with it.

 

[Argent]

Amino acids combine to form proteins which then forms nucleic acid, and subsequently, life. Amino acids is the first chain in that event. Such experients show the plausibility of how life originated under the conditions of the time. It's fascinating indeed.

Fascinating indeed. Life seeding earth from off-planet and abiogenesis are equally palatable to me. The off-planet life, if it exists, may have its genesis in ways of which we are unaware which is even more fascinating. I'm conflicted between wanting to know how it all began and maintaining the mystery.

 

[DrewPaul]

100% wrong. It was wrong the first time you said it, and it is wrong now. I have explained why, directly to you, multiple times.

It's not just wrong. At this point, it's laughable, as is your intransigent repetition of it.

It was correct the first time and continues to be correct. Chuckle away.

 

[DrewPaul]

We can test this.

It is within any number of ranges of probability that one or more DP participants are active cannibals. In fact, there is a non-zero chance that one DP contributor has eaten human flesh.

I state as fact that the poster using the handle @DrewPaul fits within the parameters of these probability sets.

Therefore, my assertion, were I to offer it, that @DrewPaul is a cannibal would serve as evidence that @DrewPaul is the cannibal.

@DrewPaul, using @DrewPaul's reasoning, is therefore necessarily a cannibal.

Straw man alert. Why do you make up an argument on my behalf? Why not use the argument I made?

 

[DrewPaul]

Amino acids combine to form proteins which then forms nucleic acid, and subsequently, life. Amino acids is the first chain in that event. Such experients show the plausibility of how life originated under the conditions of the time. It's fascinating indeed.

You do realize it hasn't been duplicated. They have been unable to replicate the alleged circumstances. But how hard can it be? Mindless forces without plan or intent caused it...right?

 

[Lursa]

No I don't I use it as defined. Tell me all about your counter theory.

What are natural laws? Why did the laws of physics turn out to be what was needed for life to exist? Natural laws didn't care or intent planets, stars, galaxies, gravity, black matter, black energy to exist correct? The last thing natural laws (mindless forces) cared about is if the exacting conditions for intelligent life to exist. Or am I wrong did nature want intelligent life to exist? There was a scientist who proposed we live in a symbiotic universe. I don't think he got far with it.

Why do you completely incorrectly believe that 'anything' had to have intent or 'want' anything?

There are physical, chemical, biological systems, reactions, cause and effect...none of them 'care' about anything or intentionally direct anything.

Do you think that photosynthesis cares if it's the mechanism for feeding green plants, and the reactions that come from that? Do you think that photosynthesis "was created to feed plants to feed animals to feed other animals?"

 

[DrewPaul]

No. I’m not.

You asked if it was intentionally caused for plankton to exist.

 

[DrewPaul]

As the saying goes goes...

"The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club."

Not saying our esteemed OP is stupid. Just apparently very ignorant of why his argument is invalid garbage.

Then you would have no need to create strawman arguments.

 

[DrewPaul]

It seems we humans are special only to ourselves. If we go extinct I don't think any other species would care much (in fact, I am sure many of them would be downright happy and relieved). I'm pretty sure the rest of the cosmos wouldn't care much either.

But so what? If something is special to me, why does it matter if other animals or the rest of the cosmos care? If I love someone, or am engaged in a career which I think is important, or enjoy a particular hobby, etc... who cares what any potential other-worldly deities thinks about all that? Why would I need the approval of the entire cosmos? If I want to live in a world of peace and prosperity, would it matter to me that there is an otherworldly God who wants constant war and strife?

I think you are looking for approval for the things that are important to you by the entire cosmos. You don't really need it. If you love it/him/her, or think it's important, you would do it regardless of what the cosmos or otherworldly entities think of it. You should have that kind of self- confidence about your own values. Trust them. You are not a small child nor a psychopath with no sense of judgment or empathy without the threat of an other-worldly deity or other external moral authority whuppin' you if you don't behave. You have a sense of judgment. You know what's right. You know when you're doing things which hurt others.

Do the right thing. Don't worry about what other-worldly deities think. You should do the right thing even if they disapprove. Don't be like Abraham with Isaac. That story has led to more terrorism and unimaginable atrocities than if we were left to our own moral judgment and sentiment.

I'm not making any theological claims. You'll have to inquire a theologian.

 

[watsup]

What are natural laws? Why did the laws of physics turn out to be what was needed for life to exist? Natural laws didn't care or intent planets, stars, galaxies, gravity, black matter, black energy to exist correct? The last thing natural laws (mindless forces) cared about is if the exacting conditions for intelligent life to exist.

You still act as if there was “intention” in the universe to end up with Homo sapiens. There is no real evidence of that.

 

[watsup]

Mindless forces without plan or intent caused it...right?

Do you have objective, reality-based evidence otherwise. Of course not! All huh have is your ILLOGICAL and repetitive nonsense.

 

[watsup]

I'm not making any theological claims. You'll have to inquire a theologian.

Of course you are making theological claims! Your so-called Intelligent Designer would clearly need the huge extra-natural powers that exactly fit the definition of a “god”.

 

[watsup]

You asked if it was intentionally caused for plankton to exist.

You still do not understand sarcasm?

 

[DrewPaul]

Now suppose you find a mountain range filled with trees and wildlife and rivers. Somewhere in this mountain range is a jagged piece of rock that could kinda-sorta be used for chopping. The presence of that rock in that mountain range does not indicate that the mountain range was "fine-tuned" for chopping, and thus designed by someone for the purpose of chopping things. A mountain range is not a good design for a chopping tool. Not like an axe is. Even if there was some incredibly unlikely series of coincidences that all had to come together in order to form that little jagged piece of rock, it still doesn't mean that the mountain range was designed by some intelligent life form as a chopping tool, and it is rather ridiculous to imagine that it would be.

The way you speak you're suggesting I made up the fine-tuning for life argument. Lee Smolin (physicist and atheist) calculated the odds of a universe at 10^229. Martin Rees (Just Six Numbers) came to roughly the same conclusion. The universe is on a razors edge between turning into black holes or matter thinly dispersed throughout the universe. Your analogy is ridiculous thats why it sounds rediculous. Both of these scientists subscribe to multiverse theory. They contend that the overwhelming majority of universes are void of planets, stars, galaxies and of course intelligent life.

IMO this debate is coming down to two possibilities. The universe we exist in is one of an infinitude of universes of varying characteristics and we find our selves in such a universe. Or the laws of physics and the properties of the universe were designed this way.

 

[Logicman]

Right. Atheists lack the belief theists have that the the universe was intentionally caused to exist. However they usually say the reason they lack belief is because they allege their is no evidence our existence was intentionally caused. That's not true. They can say its not convincing evidence, its crappy evidence. They can say it doesn't persuade them or they can claim to have better evidence it was naturalistic forces all the way down.

 

[DrewPaul]

Why do you completely incorrectly believe that 'anything' had to have intent or 'want' anything?

There are physical, chemical, biological systems, reactions, cause and effect...none of them 'care' about anything or intentionally direct anything.

Do you think that photosynthesis cares if it's the mechanism for feeding green plants, and the reactions that come from that? Do you think that photosynthesis "was created to feed plants to feed animals to feed other animals?"

I agree with you. Mindless naturalistic forces wouldn't give a rats ass if stars existed, galaxies, solar systems, planets, carbon, oxygen, water, gravity. Mindless forces didn't care if the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. The last thing mindless natural forces would care about is if intelligent humans came to exist. They didn't care if the universe itself existed. Despite all this here we are. Do you at least concede it is an unbelievable series of coincidences?

 

[Lursa]

I agree with you. Mindless naturalistic forces wouldn't give a rats ass if stars existed, galaxies, solar systems, planets, carbon, oxygen, water, gravity. Mindless forces didn't care if the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. The last thing mindless natural forces would care about is if intelligent humans came to exist. They didn't care if the universe itself existed.

Correct

Despite all this here we are.

Yup and even your experts conceded the odds.

Do you at least concede it is an unbelievable series of coincidences?

Nope...because I have a pretty solid understanding of evolution. I've take college level physics and astronomy but still have a less solid understanding of that, but even so, I have no problem understanding how such processes could work to create galaxies and celestial bodies.

 

[watsup]

Or the laws of physics and the properties of the universe were designed this way.

Prove it. You can’t.

 

[watsup]

I agree with you. Mindless naturalistic forces wouldn't give a rats ass if stars existed, galaxies, solar systems, planets, carbon, oxygen, water, gravity. Mindless forces didn't care if the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. The last thing mindless natural forces would care about is if intelligent humans came to exist. They didn't care if the universe itself existed. Despite all this here we are. Do you at least concede it is an unbelievable series of coincidences?

What about it is not “natural”? Your constant repetition of the phrase “mindless forces” shows the shallowness of your claim, not the necessity of it.

 

[devildavid]

Not really sure, I don't believe in the nature God that unintended caused our existence.

Nature God?

Causes don’t need intentions. Fire burns without intending to.

 

[Lursa]

What about it is not “natural”? Your constant repetition of the phrase “mindless forces” shows the shallowness of your claim, not the necessity of it.

Yeah...he completely avoided telling me if he thought that photosynthesis was a "mindless force". Or if its origin was.