examples of faith from atheists

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 115
#31
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Outplayz
So, i take this as a probability type situation.
I do. Given the billions of people on the planet, a significant percentage of them will have an experience like yours that is, nevertheless, meaningless. That two events in your life happened to seem to be correlated is a product of random chance (or otherwise faulty memory).
#32
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@drafterman
I do. Given the billions of people on the planet, a significant percentage of them will have an experience like yours that is, nevertheless, meaningless. That two events in your life happened to seem to be correlated is a product of random chance (or otherwise faulty memory).
Random chance, faulty memory, meaningless... you are making a lot of claims here and simply ignoring that one possibility could be meaningful.

#33
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
But aren't you ignoring all the ones we know happen all the time, like faulty memory, in favor of the stuff no one can prove, which is not as you state 'meaningful,' but rather 'supernatural and THEREFORE meaningful'? This is like when someone hallucinates Jesus and thinks that makes him real, rather than recognizes the totally natural and far more probable possibility that their brains have stored the iconography of this character and appropriated it into some totally natural brain misfire. If you hallucinated Captain America, that doesn't mean he's real.
#34
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
If you hallucinated Captain America, that doesn't mean he's real.
No it doesn't... or it might? I don't know. How would i know if he is real or not. That is moot and i'm not trying to go there. But if i did hallucinate captain America, and he told me a specific person is going to die at a specific time at a specific place and i've never met this person or seen them... and it happens, it would be pretty significant in my opinion. The only problem is that it would only be known by me that it happened. 

But aren't you ignoring all the ones we know happen all the time, like faulty memory
No i'm not. Those are all strong evidence bc it is stuff we can see and know. I went as far as saying anecdotal is weak evidence; calling brain death strong in my initial comment. I'm largely agnostic... but, like i mentioned with all that said, probably wise... i think anecdotes are evidence and i simply heed their possibility. Of course not all experience like you said, Jesus in a toast bread or something, but my point is only "one" experience, if actually happened in a transcendent, spiritual, or whatever way... that is pretty significant. I'm simply not ignoring this possibility among the others.   

#35
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
 But if i did hallucinate captain America, and he told me a specific person is going to die at a specific time at a specific place and i've never met this person or seen them... and it happens, it would be pretty significant in my opinion
Okay, but this is not what you described:


 I hallucinated a coworker talk to me and tell me "we could have been good friends" (with a somber tone). I felt a great connection with him in that moment but also a lot of sadness.



#36
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, but this is not what you described:
This wasn't my experience so i don't want to fully defend it... but the person told me they hallucinated this and have never met this specific person (so it's close to my hypothetical). I simply found it interesting. But, my point is there are millions of experiences out there and some of them are that specific. Only "one" needs to be true. Probability wise i think that's pretty crazy, personally. I don't ignore "spiritual" possibilities just bc i don't like religion... not saying you do, seems some people do. 

#37
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Outplayz
I'm not "ignoring" I'm just saying that we should expect scenarios like what you describe to happen just through sheer random chance. It's be more notable if stuff like that never happened.

So how did you rule out plain, simple coincidence?

#38
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@drafterman
So how did you rule out plain, simple coincidence?
I don't really. Actually the full story to the situation i explained i actually concluded as likely a fraud. But i simply don't know. All i can do is look at all the evidence weak and strong and come to a personal conclusion which ends up being speculation when i go into the transcendence realm. I've concluded it's strong enough for me to say i don't know.

But to answer your question specifically... i think if there are multiple coincidences in an experience, there is a stronger case for woo. Like the hypothetical i painted above for Lud... but even then, someone like a psychic that is in the business of "guessing" could win the coincidence lottery. There are many depths to this, and many angles one has to look into. I've just concluded i'm not all in with my chips either way. 

#39
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Quarks and gluons.
Lol! Google mining masquerading as an education.

They have and continuously do so.
No, I meant the world outside of your head.

Which specific one would you like me to post evidence about?
Abiogenesis.

I just want to be clear, you are claiming that "Regular shapes" isn't a thing in geometry?
No more than "warm colors" are a thing in optometry.

Of course, the fact that elementary particles come in specific kinds that are all alike doesn't refute this notion.
It refutes the notion that it is the arrangement of those elementary particles that cause life. Right after death, the arrangement remains the same, but the body is dead. Its called logic.

This is the general understood meaning of the word "see" and it is that meaning of the word I am using when I say I can "see atoms."
I did a quick test asking science professors at my daughters uni if they could see atoms, not one of them answered "yes". But as I said, being logical is not compulsory.

(and that you know to be false).
I never say things I know to be false.

I would also appreciate it if you left out any disparaging remarks about my education or knowledge.
If you show a lack of knowledge, or are poorly educated on a subject on which you're pontificating, you'd like me to pretend you're knowledgeable?

If the summation of your response to me can be accurately reduced to: "lol, ur an idoit" then we can just end the conversation now.
I dont think you're an idiot at all. You have just  greatly over-estimated your intelligence. Its more to do with ego than with IQ.

And you have always been, and will always be, free to end a convo with me at any time you please.
#40
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Quarks and gluons.
Lol! Google mining masquerading as an education.

They have and continuously do so.
No, I meant the world outside of your head.

Which specific one would you like me to post evidence about?
Abiogenesis.

I just want to be clear, you are claiming that "Regular shapes" isn't a thing in geometry?
No more than "warm colors" are a thing in optometry.

Of course, the fact that elementary particles come in specific kinds that are all alike doesn't refute this notion.
It refutes the notion that it is the arrangement of those elementary particles that cause life. Right after death, the arrangement remains the same, but the body is dead. Its called logic.

This is the general understood meaning of the word "see" and it is that meaning of the word I am using when I say I can "see atoms."
I did a quick test asking science professors at my daughters uni if they could see atoms, not one of them answered "yes". But as I said, being logical is not compulsory.

(and that you know to be false).
I never say things I know to be false.

I would also appreciate it if you left out any disparaging remarks about my education or knowledge.
If you show a lack of knowledge, or are poorly educated on a subject on which you're pontificating, you'd like me to pretend you're knowledgeable?

If the summation of your response to me can be accurately reduced to: "lol, ur an idoit" then we can just end the conversation now.
I dont think you're an idiot at all. You have just  greatly over-estimated your intelligence. Its more to do with ego than with IQ.

And you have always been, and will always be, free to end a convo with me at any time you please.
#41
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ethang5
Quarks and gluons.
Lol! Google mining masquerading as an education.
Do you have an actual rebuttal?


They have and continuously do so.
No, I meant the world outside of your head.
So did I.


Which specific one would you like me to post evidence about?
Abiogenesis.
Well, painting things in broad strokes, the spectroscopy of the sun reveals that it contains heavy elements that would not be present in a first generation star. This is evidence that the sun is at least second generation, a result of previous cycles of star birth and death. This is evidence of some beginning of Earth, as its distance from the sun make surviving such transitions improbable. Thus we establish evidence that life, at one point, was not on Earth.

And yet there is life today, meaning life had to have arisen at some point and the only thing available for it to arise from is non-living material.

QED.

I just want to be clear, you are claiming that "Regular shapes" isn't a thing in geometry?
No more than "warm colors" are a thing in optometry.
Are you saying that polygons with all the sides are equal and all the inside angles are equal don't exist or that you've never heard of such things referred to as "regular shapes?"


Of course, the fact that elementary particles come in specific kinds that are all alike doesn't refute this notion.
It refutes the notion that it is the arrangement of those elementary particles that cause life.
I don't see how.

Right after death, the arrangement remains the same, but the body is dead. Its called logic.
It is how those arrangements of atoms change over time that make them living. Life is about change.


This is the general understood meaning of the word "see" and it is that meaning of the word I am using when I say I can "see atoms."
I did a quick test asking science professors at my daughters uni if they could see atoms, not one of them answered "yes".
What did they answer?


I would also appreciate it if you left out any disparaging remarks about my education or knowledge.
If you show a lack of knowledge, or are poorly educated on a subject on which you're pontificating, you'd like me to pretend you're knowledgeable?
I'm saying that insults do not help improve the conversation and asking that you stop.


#42
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Do you have an actual rebuttal?
Not for something so science illiterate. It would be a waste of time.

Are you saying that polygons with all the sides are equal and all the inside angles are equal don't exist or that you've never heard of such things referred to as "regular shapes?"
Neither. I'm saying your classification of them as "regular" is not a trait in the shape, it is in your mind, and that your "regular" shapes are not order.

It is how those arrangements of atoms change over time that make them living. Life is about change.
That is not what you first said. Now you are moving the goalposts from "arrangement" to "change over time".

But this tweak doesn't save your argument. What has been the atomic "change" in the brain of a man 2 minutes dead?

What did they answer?
They said "No". A few said that atoms cannot be seen.

I'm saying that insults do not help improve the conversation and asking that you stop.
I am not insulting you, but you are feeling insulted. The only thing I can tell you is that I do not intend to insult you. But if you are feeling insulted perhaps you should leave. I refuse to be responsible for your feelings.

Thus we establish evidence that life, at one point, was not on Earth.
And yet there is life today, meaning life had to have arisen at some point and the only thing available for it to arise from is non-living material.
This is where our problem is! You have corrupted the definition of "abiogenesis".

Even ludo does it when he says....

The bible seems to support abiogenesis, which simply means that life arose from non-life. Isn't that how Adam is created in the genesis account?
No, it isn't.

The claim that abiogenesis is referring to the matter that constitutes living bodies is disingenuous.

Everyone knows and accepts that living bodies are composed of natural non-living material, abiogenesis says that non-living material came to life spontaneously in the absence of other life.

Materialists want to skew the definition of abiogenesis to, "life from non-living material.

We have all the material, why can't science create life?

...meaning life had to have arisen at some point and the only thing available for it to arise from is non-living material.
But the question is NOT what material did life arise from, but how did it arise? We still have all the materials present, we have even conducted experiments duplicating early Earth conditions. Yet no life developed.

The OP's point is not that there was no material present for life, but that there was no life.

This is the conundrum materialists face when they insist that life and the organic material it inhabits are equivalent.

They cannot explain things like why no instance of organic material has ever been known to become alive, or what the material difference is between a living body and one recently dead.

So to ward off the materialists attempt to water down the definition of abiogenesis, the axiom that "life cannot come from non-life", is better rendered as, "life cannot come from the non-living." Or even better, "life cannot arise in the absence of prior life."

So Draftsman, we see you do assume. There was once no life on Earth, now there is life, you conclude abiogenesis out of pure assumption.

Abiogenesis has NEVER been observed, it cannot be explained, science has no working hypothesis for its mechanism. It has failed to be duplicated or reproduced in any scientific experiment ever conducted.

Every instance of life since man could think has been from prior life. Every scientific experiment to date has confirmed life only from prior life

The fact that life is here now is not evidence for abiogenesis. It is not evidence that life began spontaneously.

There is no reason or evidence to believe that life started on Earth in a way different than what we have always observed.

You assume abiogenesis simply because you do not like the science supported alternative.
#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Trouble is you are over complicating or in fact incorrectly defining the word abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis loosely refers to or assumes the possibility of a process from which life was able to evolve.

Abiogenesis does not specifically insinuate that a blob of inert matter suddenly burst into life.

Of course, the alternative to an abiogenic process is a magical process, whereby a blob of inert matter was suddenly made to burst into life.

No accounting for the magician though.
#44
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Abiogenesis loosely refers to or assumes the possibility of a process from which life was able to evolve.
Untrue. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. The "a" means without, the "bio" means "life", and "genesis" means "beginning".

Abiogenesis means the spontaneous beginning of life in the absence of prior life. It is a fantasy that has zero scientific evidence for it.

Abiogenesis does not specifically insinuate that a blob of inert matter suddenly burst into life.
What does it insinuate specifically?

Of course, the alternative to an abiogenic process is a magical process, whereby a blob of inert matter was suddenly made to burst into life.
Abject nonsense. We see the alternative every day. The alternative has been confirmed by scientific experimentation for decades. Life comes from prior life.

Using the word "magic" only serves to poison the well as you have no real defense of abiogenesis and cannot admit that the alternative is actually scientifically sound.

Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that matter cannot be destroyed.

Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that the speed of light is constant.

Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that time proceeds in one direction only.

Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that life occurs only in the presence of prior life.

A real man of science will follow science no matter where it leads. Give me evidence for abiogenesis or it gets dismissed as wishful thinking.

Calling things you don't understand "magic" is for superstitious illiterates.

What is the evidence for abiogenesis??
#45
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Check your dictionary occasionally.

Abiogenesis is speculation about an unknown process. Which is exactly what the conundrum concerning the inception of life is.

Also any ongoing process of development is evolution.

Evolution does not have specific connotations. Unless you choose to incorrectly imply specific connotations.

You redefine or perhaps manipulate definition to suit your purposes.

And scientific evidence is only human understanding as far as it goes and not always human certainty.
#46
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ethang5
i have only ever talked about that abiogenesis happened and never made any claims about how it happened. And since I see no rebuttal to the evidence I gave, I will accept your concession on this and other matters.

When you want to stop making veiled insults about my scientific literacy and actually post a rebuttal, (from you, not fictitious professors), I will be here.
#47
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
i have only ever talked about that abiogenesis happened...
It has never happened anywhere other than your imagination.

...since I see no rebuttal to the evidence I gave
You gave no evidence. "Life not here, life here, therefore abiogenesis" is nonsense, not evidence.

I will accept your concession on this and other matters.
Lol. Go ahead. You imagine evidence for abiogenesis, no reason not to imagine a concession. Lord knows you won't get one through logical argumentation.

When you want to stop making veiled insults...
 
...from you, not fictitious professors
Lol. Hypocrite.

I will be here.
And still without evidence no doubt.
#48
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ethang5
I've provided my evidence, you have provided no rebuttal other than simple denial.

I think that about sums things up, have a nice day.
#49
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Abiogenesis is speculation about an unknown process. 
Thank you.

Evolution does not have specific connotations.
You brought up evolution, I didn't. It has nothing to do with my argument.

scientific evidence is only human understanding as far as it goes and not always human certainty.

All I asked for evidence, not certainty. For abiogenesis, there was no evidence offered. As you have honestly admitted, Abiogenesis is speculation about an unknown process. 

Though for the life of me, I still cannot understand why people who say they know science cling to an idea with no scientific evidence and actually contradicts all scientific knowledge on the subject to date.

Usually my opponents in debates about abiogenesis run away. But often, when one of them fancies himself a man of science, he gets huffy and stomps off when I show his science is deficient.
#50
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
So is it fair to say then that you believe life ALWAYS existed? If you accept big bang cosmology, you believe life came into existence right at the very moment of the big bang? Not the elements of life, but actual life as we know it today?

If the answer is yes, that's what you believe, then please provide your own evidence, as not a single scientist in any field, anywhere, would tell you this is the case. The conditions of the big bang were far, far, far, far, far from conducive to the formation of life. Seeing as at the time of the big bang there were no planets or stars on which this life would somehow reside and develop (surely you cannot believe that at the big bang a person was present), this is going to be a tall order. It would be an outrageous claim, but you're saying you know a lot about science, so you must have some support for this unique "life existed as long as the universe itself existed" claim.

If the answer is no, life did not begin to exist at precisely the moment the big bang occurred, but life exists now, you understand that this is EXACTLY EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS, right? It did not exist then. It exists now. That's literally abiogenesis: no life at point A, life at point B. I believe your question more accurately is how did abiogenesis, which again, if you believe in big bang cosmology, HAD TO HAPPEN because you're alive, happen. Is that more accurate? And you believe the answer to be "Jesus," correct? 


Abiogenesis is in no way a position taken on faith. It's a simple conclusion. Life at one point didn't exist. It does now. As of this moment, the mystery of abiogenesis, as in how it happened or why it occurs in some places and not others, are questions we don't have answers to. Seems like nothing makes a Christian more uncomfortable than answering honestly "I don't know."
#51
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Seems like nothing makes a Christian more uncomfortable than answering honestly "I don't know."
We aren't guessing here. At least I'm not. Science advances in stages. For example, we first find out that matter is made up of atoms, and then later find out that atoms are made up of even smaller particles.

You want to jump before we have settled one stage of scientific exploration. Why?

Here is what we know. We know that life comes only from prior life. Every bit of scientific evidence to date confirms this.

Now, we also know that the universe was at one time inhospitable to life as we know it. But life is here now.

These two things should not cause the man of science to ditch clear science that is telling us life comes only from life.

The two things are currently unresolved, but both can be true, and in fact, it is science saying both are true.

Science has many thing like this, things that seem to contradict if both are true. Is light a wave or a particle?

But no real scientist rejects light being a particle because another bit of evidence says light is a wave. It is not fully resolved, but science confirms both positions.

Now, science confirms that life comes only from life. There is no evidence to the contrary. None. Science doesn't even have a clue of a hypothesis for any mechanism for spontaneous creation of life.

If the answer is no, life did not begin to exist at precisely the moment the big bang occurred, but life exists now, you understand that this is EXACTLY EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS, right?
Not at all. This is like a Christian saying, any God is evidence for the Christian God. If there was no life, and there is life now, why is spontaneous life the only option?

Why is the universe not teeming with life? Why have we NEVER observed it on Earth? The dilemma is unresolved, it is NOT evidence for abiogenesis.

It did not exist then. It exists now. That's literally abiogenesis: no life at point A, life at point B.
No, that is NOT abiogenesis. You are saying any unexplained occurrence of life MUST be abiogenesis. A phenomena never seen, never produced, never repeated, ever. Why?

This is exactly like the illiterate who believes ghosts when he sees an object move unaided because it "can't be anything else". He just doesn't know what else it could be, but it is NOT evidence for ghosts. It's unexplained.

It is unexplained, not abiogenesis. Non-the-less, all the evidence so far is on the side of life from life.

This is poor and sloppy thinking. And I can show how, but I want to resolve the first question first.

Right now, science has no evidence of the spontaneous creation of life at any time or any place in the universe.

Calling the unexplained "abiogenesis", is conjecture and assumption based on no scientific evidence, and is akin to calling the unexplained ghosts or magic.

What science needs to do now, is to try to resolve the things we know that seem to contradict instead of unjustifiably assuming abiogenesis for no scientific reason at all.
#52
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

We know that life comes only from prior life. Every bit of scientific evidence to date confirms this.

Not true, but almost: we've never observed life arising spontaneously. That doesn't mean it can't happen. In fact, it must have happened, unless you're again claiming life perhaps happened at the exact moment of the big bang, You didn't answer that by the way, I noticed. This is called the Black Swan fallacy. We haven't observed it directly, that part is true. Science does not CONFIRM that this is the only way it can possibly happen. It merely says "We don't know how it happened, here's our theories, here's the evidence (all of which you will ignore), but we don't know for sure." This is not confirmation that life only comes from other life. By the way, you're laying yourself the usual infinite regress trap. If it only comes from other life, where did that life come from?

 If there was no life, and there is life now, why is spontaneous life the only option?

No one's saying it is the only option. But if there once wasn't life, and now there is, by definition, life came from non life, abiogenetically. This is a simple conclusion and makes no claim about the process that resulted in it. You're looking at the final score of a football game: 27 - 10. You can conclude that one team won, but you don't know how they scored the points. Just because you don't know how they scored the points, that doesn't mean the team with 27 might not have won. They definitely won. it's the same with abiogenesis: at one point, the big bang and the billions of years after where there were no surfaces like stars or planets, as far as we can tell, there was no life. Now there is. It arose from something that was not life. I don't know how, I know it's here. Please explain how you cannot understand this is true, I've even given you your answer to help: you either eschew the big bang evidence, subscribe to a biblical creation account or some other version of creation, OR you believe in BBC and life was present when it happened. There aren't any other answers available. 

Why is the universe not teeming with life? Why have we NEVER observed it on Earth? The dilemma is unresolved, it is NOT evidence for abiogenesis.

This has little to do with the topic, but, mr. I have such a great science background, how much of the universe do you think we've actually observed? And how many other planets have we explored? You are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the size of the universe, the speed of light, etc. It's sad. 

I'll make it simpler.

If life only comes from life, was life as we know it extant at the very moment of the big bang? If so, where did that life come from? 
#53
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
We know that life comes only from prior life. Every bit of scientific evidence to date confirms this.

Not true, but almost: we've never observed life arising spontaneously. That doesn't mean it can't happen.
I did not say it cannot happen. I only know it has NEVER happened, and there is no coherent hypothesis for it happening.

As it is, a theory that someone alive came from a parallel universe and seeded Earth with life is as viable as abiogenesis, and has exactly the same amount of evidence for it.

In fact, it must have happened, unless you're again claiming life perhaps happened at the exact moment of the big bang, You didn't answer that by the way, I noticed.
I can only tell you what science says. No one knows. It is currently unresolved.

...here's the evidence (all of which you will ignore)
I will ignore no viable evidence, but I will not accept something as evidence that is assumed and really says nothing about abiogenesis.

If it only comes from other life, where did that life come from?
This is what I mean by you trying to jump ship. I'm not making guesses. I'm stating to you the results of 2,000 years of scientific observation and experimentation. Life comes only from life. You act as if I'm stating my personal  belief.

No one's saying it is the only option.
Why is it an option at all? It has no evidence! None. Are ghosts also an option? Dragons? Aliens?

Options should at least have some scientific reality. Some evidence that they are plausible. Or else, everything is an option.

But if there once wasn't life, and now there is, by definition, life came from non life, abiogenetically.
This is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow.

This is a simple conclusion and makes no claim about the process that resulted in it. 
It is a scientifically unjustified assumption.

They definitely won. 
That is a false analogy. A real analogy would be seeing a score and assuming the team played. The score is evidence someone won, not evidence your team did.

It arose from something that was not life.
That is the unwarranted assumption. No one yet knows how it arose. It is unresolved. You want to force it to be abiogenesis. Why? Unresolved means there is currently no answer.

There aren't any other answers available. 
Science waits when there is no answer. It doesn't shoehorn in some no-evidence silliness just because.

You are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the size of the universe, the speed of light, etc. It's sad. 
Not so. If abiogenesis is possible, (and your theory says it is probable), given the amount of time involved, the universe should be infested with life.

We do not need to physically explore other worlds to discover life. Is our SETI program one with spaceships? We listen for radio waves which travel at the speed of light. We hear nothing. We find no floating debris. No anomalous radiation.

This is not proof there isn't life, but so far, the idea that life would spontaneously occur under the right conditions is shaky.

A few scientists have now openly said that our current understanding must be wrong. SETI has shut down.

It is actually you who has no clue as to the vastness of the universe. If only one in every million planets can host life, that would remain quadrillions of planets that should have life. And this is a conservative estimate.

We have already found more than 4,000 such planets. No life yet. You guys must face the implications of your theory.

If life only comes from life, was life as we know it extant at the very moment of the big bang? If so, where did that life come from?
No one currently knows, but there is as much reason to claim abiogenesis as there is to claim a mirror universe.

And because no one knows is not reason to insert a zero-evidence, anti-science travesty into the question.

#54
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
If it only comes from other life, where did that life come from?

life is cyclical, and at the backdrop is a static conscious Reality. This Reality is eternal so it doesn't need to come from anything. In other words there never was an instance where that Reality was not present, so when we say that life within the universe comes from life, we are talking about the processes we observe in creation materializing from an eternal life. So your question is nonsensical, you have to learn what is being proposed and that is why you guys should be asking more and not telling more.

was life as we know it extant at the very moment of the big bang? If so

The Big bang is just another process of the Creator, life preceded that. The Big Bang enabled God with more tools and material to create with. Why do you think planets form so that bodies can exist on them lol? should be pretty obvious to anyone TBH.

#55
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I did not say it cannot happen. I only know it has NEVER happened, 

Walk me through this: if life can only come from prior life, according to you, and the above quote from you, that life coming from non-life NEVER happened, did life precede the big bang? It seems the only logical answer is yes. You aren't making guesses because you know your guess is a contradiction in terms: any answer that has life ONLY coming from life has to fall into an infinite regress. Until, of course, you stop it with "MAGIC," aka special pleading. Please demonstrate how you avoid this. 

 I'm stating to you the results of 2,000 years of scientific observation and experimentation. Life comes only from life. You act as if I'm stating my personal  belief.
What year was the telescope invented? The microscope? What is the starting point of this 2000 years? This is yet another demonstration, one you don't recognize, of your incredible misunderstanding of time. I'll give you an example: it took something like 4000 years to go from the two wheeled chariot that led Egypt to a dominating empire, to the steam engine. It took one hundred or so years to go from the steam engine to a consumer automobile. It took eighty years to go from the gasoline engine to standing on the moon. Sixty years ago a computer was the size of a couple of tractor trailers. Now you can hold 20,000 books on something that's smaller than a notebook. Seventy years ago if your child was diagnosed with cancer, they died at about a rate of 80%. Now that same child has an 80% chance of survival into adulthood and being cancer free. The point you miss is that science accelerates, all the time. That's all it ever does. Science wasn't even being really done until about 1500, and we didn't discover a different planet existed, one different from the eight in our solar system, until less than fifty years ago (and now there are thousands confirmed). Combine this willful ignorance of yours with a drastic underestimation of the size of the universe and the speed of light and why that's important and you have what looks like a pretty big blind spot. What are you going to say if that water they just discovered an inch below Mars' surface, frozen water, contains the signature of life? That Jesus put it there?

But if there once wasn't life, and now there is, by definition, life came from non life, abiogenetically.
This is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow.
It's not a logical fallacy, and I'm not sure you know what that is, either. This is a simple definition of the term abiogenesis, which you seem to be confusing with "the process" by which life developed, abiogenetically or at all. I'll say it again. If you are going to say that at one time, life didn't exist, and we know today that there is life on our planet, somehow, then that life arose abiogenetically if you go back far enough (to the point where life didn't exist). Your only other option is to claim that life ALWAYS existed, even prior to the big bang somehow, which would be quite a bit less believable than "once all the elements we recognize as necessary for life existed, it apparently developed, but given that we do not have an experiment that can span a billion years to find out, we likely will never know how." To review:

If at point A, there was no life, and at point C there is life, then life came about abiogenetically by definition. You're saying it didn't because we've never seen it happen, I get that. But I'm saying what then is your alternative: life only comes from life? If so, where'd that life come from?

Yes, we've found 4000 planets. In the last forty years! And you apparently believe all of these planets have been thoroughly explored. What if life is at a cellular level? Do you figure it's easy to prove microbioitic life from a distance of 10 light years?   
#56
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Walk me through this: if life can only come from prior life, according to you

We are proposing two distinct things that are the same in nature, "life" as it appeared on Earth through the process of evolution AND...…..and......and....life as it exists with the Creator, life that is a part of God. Maybe it's the term "life" that's throwing you off? anything that is conscious or aware (God) is what we would label life, and since the conscious Reality of God precedes life on Earth our claim is that life does not arise from non-living matter...the awareness that exists in forms on Earth originates with God. And, no infinite regress needed because conscious awareness is the foundation and that foundation is what everything comes from not matter.
Here, let's break it down very simply...

God (life) exists eternally, it's a static stationary omnipresent, conscious Reality comparable to energy (same proposition involved). It exists independent of time, space, matter as well as within it = FIRST, original source of life

God begins the processes of creating = energy condensed and released =Big bang = processes of creating begin

Stars, moons, galaxies, solar systems and planets are arranged/formed = universe

Then comes the development of embodiments and forms on planets = next phase of life = same source of awareness only a restricted/limited form of it

Conclusion.....life as we observe it on this planet originated from the life and awareness of God = life never came from non-life = life preceded life on this planet.

#57
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
THe post says "life can only come from prior life." It's pretty clear. Not "some forms of life come from prior life, as observed, others come from other life that isn't exactly like you think of life, but instead materialize out of a strange awareness no one has ever demonstrated, but I think it's there." The statement life comes only from life is extremely clear. If you want to say God is Life, cool...where'd that life come from, because now it's not coming from any prior life, as stated in the original proposition. It's coming from special pleading ("except when I bring in awareness which is life and that's eternal, and therefore no prior life is required.") 

The problem is that if you're using the word life, we have a common meaning for this term, and I'm using it in that context. Life = organic matter. You seem to want to use it to substantiate something else entirely that it does NOT mean, commonly. As it exists with an unseen creator is meaningless, and then you switch to awareness and seem to say that life also means that, which it doesn't (trees are alive but not sentient). You're saying this version of life arose from something that always existed, which is special pleading and exactly my point: if life always existed, then it didn't always come from life. You're also adding something that's not demonstrated, a creator, to something that is demonstrated, that adds no value: if we can demonstrate BBC (through CMBR and other evidence), why is a creator necessary, what's it add? It doesn't answer any questions. You're not answering the question, you're moving it one step further back. For thousands and thousands of years people thought some deity or other created the world in front of their eyes, then we make discoveries and figure things out, and you end up with God of the Gaps ("God created the universe through the big bang even though nothing of that at all is mentioned in any writing about the character). And it doesn't connect to the biblical god at all. I know you have some nebulous amorphous belief system I can't figure out, so I'll chalk it up to that, but you offer no evidence either, I'm sorry. 


#58
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Please demonstrate how you avoid this. 
I don't have to avoid anything. I only have to follow the science. Where there is no evidence, I say I don't know.

Science says life always comes from life. Science currently has no clue how life started in the universe. But so what? Science at one time didn't know what caused the common cold. That didn't hamper the fact that science knew colds were infectious.

I keep telling you what science says and you keep asking me to guess on things science does not yet know. What science does not know does not disallow what science does know.

What is the starting point of this 2000 years? 
On Earth Ludo, on Earth.

You aren't making guesses because you know your guess is a contradiction in terms:
No. I'm not making guesses because guessing is not science.

If at point A, there was no life, and at point C there is life, then life came about abiogenetically by definition. 
That is a logical fallacy. If at point A, there was no life, and at point C there is life, then EITHER life came about  in a way we don't yet know, or your premise is incorrect.

You're saying it didn't because we've never seen it happen, I get that. But I'm saying what then is your alternative: life only comes from life? If so, where'd that life come from?
We don't currently know! What? You reject science not knowing everything?

But in not knowing, why in the world would we substitute a theory with no evidence, that never been known to occur, and goes against what we have observed since we've been keeping records? Why?

Because there is no alternative you say. But assuming because science doesn't know is NOT science! It's superstition.

And worse, you are assuming something that has not one scrap of scientific evidence for it! None.

Yes, we've found 4000 planets. In the last forty years! And you apparently believe all of these planets have been thoroughly explored.
You aren't thinking.

Given the time scales of your theory..
1. The universe should be infested with life, it should be everywhere.
2. Some of that life should have by now, like us, attained advanced technology. We (and they ) should by now have picked up radio frequency radiation.
3. Some of that life should have already  reached very advanced technology and should have discovered us already.
4. No life being found in the universe so far, no life in the solar system, no life on Earth, is evidence that supports life only from life, and life never from abiogenesis.

Let me ask you some questions.
How did water get on Earth? Do you know that the Earth is unique not only in having life, but in having water?

The theory was that water was brought to Earth by comets. Why did those comets miss all the other planets?

Now a developing theory says the Earth always had water. Scientists are finding out that the water on the Earth is as old as the sun.

Are we to think that water spontaneously generated on Earth because no alternative theory exists? Or because oxygen and hydrogen existed so....water?

Science currently says that the earth was at one time too hot to have water. Yet water is here now. Plenty of it.

If at point A, there was no water, and at point C there is water, then water came about spontaneously by definition. 

Is this logical?

#59
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I see you refuse to understand that you are confusing the definition of the word with the process by which it happens. And you don't understand what a logical fallacy is. THere's really no reason to continue this discussion with you then. That enumerated list you have there also demonstrates exactly what I described, that you have  a massive misunderstanding about the universe and the speed of light and why that would be an incredibly limiting factor. Thanks though, happy holidays. 

How did water get on Earth? Do you know that the Earth is unique not only in having life, but in having water?
I will field this one. I don't know to the first one, and the bit about water is demonstrably false even within our solar system. THere are several satellites in our solar system with confirmed liquid water under icy surfaces. 

Why did those comets miss all the other planets?
Again, you demonstrate you have no idea how much space you're talking about, or how much time, or how many comets DIDN'T miss other planets. THe asteroid field between mars and the outer planets isn't like the one in Empire Strikes Back, either, I mean I hate to break it to you. 
#60
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
THe post says "life can only come from prior life." It's pretty clear.
And that's what I also said, pretty clearly.
Not "some forms of life come from prior life, as observed, others come from other life that isn't exactly like you think of life,
Excuse me?
but instead materialize out of a strange awareness no one has ever demonstrated, but I think it's there."
Strange awareness? what do you think the actual Theistic proposition is then? is God not aware or conscious? everywhere you look on Earth is awareness how is it strange, I'm extending that premise beyond this planet. We know that things materialize out of a strange energy....and you accept that,  I'm saying it's not strange that energy does this because it occurs through an intelligent Source.
The statement life comes only from life is extremely clear. If you want to say God is Life, cool...
Awesome, then you get it?
where'd that life come from,
Since I've already clearly explained that I'd like you at least to read my posts and acknowledge the answers. Awareness doesn't come from anything just like energy does not come from anything. Energy and awareness co-exist, conscious activity generates energy. Both energy and God are not created, and not destroyed...hence eternal. If something is eternal it has no need to come from anything.
because now it's not coming from any prior life, as stated in the original proposition.
Are you kidding me or just not reading my posts?
It's coming from special pleading ("except when I bring in awareness which is life and that's eternal, and therefore no prior life is required.")
Where does energy come from Ludo? if you accept that energy does not come from something are you special pleading? then how am I special pleading when I say God does not come from anything, awareness is eternally existent. The life on Earth obviously had a beginning point, but I'm extending life beyond physical forms of earth. That is the reality of it.
The problem is that if you're using the word life, we have a common meaning for this term, and I'm using it in that context. Life = organic matter.
I said anything that is aware or conscious we would label life, is that incorrect? would you consider yourself life? if God is both aware and conscious is that not considered life? you consider life on earth when it comes to conscious beings but then you freak out when I say that God is also life?
Life-
"A principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings."
"an animating and shaping force or principle"
"spiritual existence transcending physical death"
"The quality that distinguishes a vital functional being from a dead body"
Awareness
" the quality or state of being aware : knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists"
"the state or condition of being aware; having knowledge;
Consciousness
"the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings."
"the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world"

All the terms I'm using for my position are legit.

You seem to want to use it to substantiate something else entirely that it does NOT mean, commonly.
Not true as I have shown above, however when we discuss Theistic premises it's only considered uncommon by a materialistic perspective. But in spirituality and religion what I'm saying is not uncommon.
As it exists with an unseen creator is meaningless, and then you switch to awareness and seem to say that life also means that, which it doesn't (trees are alive but not sentient).
Look at the definitions above, and yes trees have awareness Ludo. They respond to their environment.
You're saying this version of life arose from something that always existed,
Not arose, eternally existing awareness. That is what God is proposed as, and my arguments follow that. Out of awareness comes all things, processes are associated with intelligence. Basically I'm putting all the pieces together for you from the Creator all the way down to our experience here on this planet.
which is special pleading and exactly my point:
Are you special pleading when you accept that energy has always existed in one form or another? why when I bring in God to the equation I'm special pleading? why not just deal with the argument and move forward. We have specific premises and these have been known for a long time.
 if life always existed, then it didn't always come from life.
Okay, it always existed then, how's that lol?
You're also adding something that's not demonstrated, a creator, to something that is demonstrated, that adds no value:
That is bull, because on your end you have many unanswered questions. Or at least you should, you should be asking why's and not how's. For example, how do you account for the way energy operates in creation? it just does right? magic perhaps? I'm saying energy acts as intelligence in the processes involved, that intelligence coming from the Creator. In other words God manipulates energy to create things. That has value sir.
if we can demonstrate BBC (through CMBR and other evidence), why is a creator necessary, what's it add?
Solid reasoning, commonsense and answers to unanswerable questions. They may explain how things occur but not why, I take you that step further... It being true, adds a lot to the world view doesn't it? that's a pretty drastic alternative I'd say from materialism not to mention the dynamics change drastically.
It doesn't answer any questions.
Then you aren't paying attention to what I'm writing.
 you're moving it one step further back.
Correct, I'm looking at the entire picture not just the steps involved answering why things occur the way they do.

For thousands and thousands of years people thought some deity or other created the world in front of their eyes,
Irrelevant, they were not aware of any processes because they didn't have that ability to discover what we have.
then we make discoveries and figure things out, and you end up with God of the Gaps
Yes, God does fill the gaps because your premise has holes, if God fills the gaps that is the point behind what I'm saying. If God exists, then are not the processes we observe originate on the Creator's behalf? are you satisfied with gaps in your worldview? I wouldn't be...
  And it doesn't connect to the biblical god at all.
That doesn't concern me, on the other hand there's no reason for me to believe that anything I'm saying contradicts the Biblical God, as I'm not a Biblical literalist.
I know you have some nebulous amorphous belief system I can't figure out, so I'll chalk it up to that, but you offer no evidence either, I'm sorry.
It's pretty straight forward dude. On top of that I'm using basic Theistic premises. Sorry.