Pollux
Member
Quoted because I find it to be very interesting.
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
Quoted because I find it to be very interesting.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Log4Girlz said:
How is this even comparable? Gravitational forces can tested, measured, and I can drop an object over and over to see gravity with my own eyes. It's nowhere near the same level as the hypthesis of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is finding the object in the ground, and saying that it built itself up there, but we don't know how.
Scientists view abiogenesis as the most plausible natural cause, not based on empirical evidence, but on lack of an alternative. Both creation and abiogenesis require the belief in an unseen process that can't be replicated by science.
Zaptruder said:
It's not an argument against abiogenesis, but it defies the basic definition of a scientific hypothesis.
That was quite evangelical. At least I hope you can understand the other side who's explanation "feels" right, based on all the experimental evidence.
Well, since its being quoted again, what parts interest you most? Is it the post as a whole, certain parts?
When have we found gravitational waves? Who won that nobel prize? You do realize that the specific nature of gravity is a mystery and some would argue it is not even a fundamental force. The basic constituents of life exist, they have been studied in great detail, next step is to replicate it at its most basic level with basic elements, it is the next step in understanding this phenomenon.
Gravity exists, we have studied it in great detail, and have an idea on how it propagates, but we need to detect these propagation waves in a replicable experiment, it is the next step in understand this phenomenon.
Creation can never be tested, abiogenesis can. We are in the process of recreating the conditions of the early earth. That's a pretty big difference between the two concepts.
Creation is founded on nothing. Abiogenesis is founded on rational thought and is the natural conclusion science has come to and is in the process of testing. They are fundamentally different on those grounds.
So you agree with me on saying that those that we consider alive value this "life" itself more than their own well-being, right? Because if they would not, they would not go to a long way to always reproduce a different existence (whether it is a child or not, it is still not the same existence). We have a dozens of examples where reproducing costs the hosts life, or the male's life in some insects. We are seeing animals travelling hundreds of kilometers yearly, again and again, to take part in this. We are seeing examples that all say: they are not protecting their own lifes and are not clinging to it, they are acting on the lossless value of life itself.
Even when animals feed on other animals. It is for pure need, nothing more.
About the plants part: I am not saying that it is not the result of natural selection. Of course it is. My theory does not try to deny either that or evolution: they are both very strong and very real traits of this existance, because every change in ourselves is represented by our structural change on a molecular/cellular level as well. If a plant or an animal represents a part of life, existing is an act that will result in interacting with others in this plane of existence, sometimes fighting, sometimes helping each other (symbiotic relationships, fish schools, hives, hell: cities of people
, but always acting upon the premise that what we represent is not lost when we dissolve into dust.(Also, to provide an alternative: if life would be one and only, non-repeatable something within every organism, then each organism would strive to get bigger and bigger until it is content and can reproduce its dying cells from the resources available again and again and again...and again. Until the sun burns out and the planet dies
Or even further.)You're not understanding the argument. Lets give you an example
In early life - super early, lets say there is an organism that is selfish - doesn't care about its young, whatever. This organism has a lower chance of passing on its genes - its young die, or it doesn't bother finding a mate, or whatevs. Now its bro has a mutation that, for some reason, makes it care a TINY bit more - lets say we call it the 'attachment' mutation, or the early forms of emotion. This mutation makes it put up a tiny bit more of a fight than its brother would in a fight - and instead of 9/10 of its kids being killed (like with what happened to its brother), only 5/10 are. Of these 5, 3 also carry the "Give more of a shit" gene - and their kids reproduce more - and some of these descendants have the gene mutate to be stronger or weaker - the correct strength for the correct environment is the most successful.
Some animals care a LOT about their kids, some not so much - and that's just how evolution has crafted them. Nothing special about it.
Alright. Then we disagree, moving on
(My english understanding must have been wrong then, or you are just drawing different conclusionf from what you have said in my quoted post).
So you agree with me on saying that those that we consider alive value this "life" itself more than their own well-being, right? Because if they would not, they would not go to a long way to always reproduce a different existence (whether it is a child or not, it is still not the same existence). We have a dozens of examples where reproducing costs the hosts life, or the male's life in some insects. We are seeing animals travelling hundreds of kilometers yearly, again and again, to take part in this. We are seeing examples that all say: they are not protecting their own lifes and are not clinging to it, they are acting on the lossless value of life itself.
Even when animals feed on other animals. It is for pure need, nothing more.
About the plants part: I am not saying that it is not the result of natural selection. Of course it is. My theory does not try to deny either that or evolution: they are both very strong and very real traits of this existance, because every change in ourselves is represented by our structural change on a molecular/cellular level as well. If a plant or an animal represents a part of life, existing is an act that will result in interacting with others in this plane of existence, sometimes fighting, sometimes helping each other (symbiotic relationships, fish schools, hives, hell: cities of people
(Also, to provide an alternative: if life would be one and only, non-repeatable something within every organism, then each organism would strive to get bigger and bigger until it is content and can reproduce its dying cells from the resources available again and again and again...and again. Until the sun burns out and the planet dies
The selfish gene is an interesting theory as to why behaviors arise which do not benefit an individual, but instead a genetically similar population of creatures. With the exception of humans, I do not know of any species who have sacrificial behaviors towards other species.
Alright, Kinitari.
So what you are saying that "caring about the offsprings" and helping them survive/act on this premise/whatever makes that organism and its childs survive, and that is why this shows up often in further, move evolved species as this trait pretty much gets them more chance to survive.
So instead of assuming that there is a merit of doing this for the one who originally reproduces, we just assume that it is a random trait to have, one that proved to be most succesful in evolution, therefore it just happened this way?
I have seen dogs defend cats, taking care of each other's kids sometimes, birds helping other bird species to grow up, etc.
The interspecies requirement however is interesting, as I see no point in bringing that up - as in what would we gain if we limited it to sacrificial behavior towards others from other species? Why is it not sacrificial if it is between our race?
So what you are saying that "caring about the offsprings" and helping them survive/act on this premise/whatever makes that organism and its childs survive, and that is why this shows up often in further, move evolved species as this trait pretty much gets them more chance to survive.
So instead of assuming that there is a merit of doing this for the one who originally reproduces, we just assume that it is a random trait to have, one that proved to be most succesful in evolution, therefore it just happened this way?
I have seen dogs defend cats, taking care of each other's kids sometimes, birds helping other bird species to grow up, etc.
The interspecies requirement however is interesting, as I see no point in bringing that up - as in what would we gain if we limited it to sacrificial behavior towards others from other species? Why is it not sacrificial if it is between our race?
Sanky Panky
Banned
Once again, the phenomenom of gravity is a repeated occurrence easily observable. Life spawning out of matter can't be observed no matter how much experiments, technology, and time you throw at it. It begs the question again, what would it take to disprove the hypothesis.
Natural selection of those traits. If a behavior is not successful, it is not represented in a species. Lions have territories, they do not migrate to europe and back like certain birds do.
The influence of gravity is observable, gravitons have not been observed. Gravity waves have not been observed.
Additionally, the bolded is a baseless assumption. The inability to create life from constituent molecules would disprove the theory, as one of its assumptions is that there should be no problem recreating life from basic, non-living elements in an experimental environment. We are working our way towards creating life from constituent molecules from scratch.
We don't assume, this is an understood science. But yeah.
Look, there's nothing wrong with faith as it's own concept. It's what you're having faith in. Having faith that one day we'll know enough, or be able to find out what happened through some currently undeveloped technique is not some absurd leap of logic. It's called problem solving, and it happens over time. This faith has a reasonable explanation.
Having faith that the answer is some magic man in the sky created life because having an answer to every question helps me sleep at night is not the same thing. This is the faith that people say, "I don't have to explain my faith!" about because there can never be a reasonable explanation. Not to someone that values reason, at least.
I hate that I just posted in this thread.
Sanky Panky
Banned
It took this long to answer the original question. Sadly, it's not that anybody is realistically close to it, so keep up the faith! Under a controlled environment, I'm sure one day I'll be able to jump high enough to touch the top of the empire state building. All the elements are there, so it's only a matter of time.
At least you are humble enough to admit this. You have faith in something that no matter how much we try, seems naturally impossible. Nobody is going to ask you to back up that faith.
There is a difference between reasonable faith, and unfounded faith. I have 'faith', in a sense, that the sun will rise tomorrow - because it's consistently shown it has, and from what we know of the sun and how it works, it should.
The difference with religious faith is - it's unfounded. There is no logical, empirical, scientific or real world reason to hold to that faith.
Trying to paint an equivalency between the two is just silly, and it feels like someone desperately trying to be held to the same level of validity.
Metaphysical is on another plane, if anything, you should stick to that stance - don't try to make it equivalent.
The difference with religious faith is - it's unfounded. There is no logical, empirical, scientific or real world reason to hold to that faith.
Trying to paint an equivalency between the two is just silly, and it feels like someone desperately trying to be held to the same level of validity.
Metaphysical is on another plane, if anything, you should stick to that stance - don't try to make it equivalent.
See, this is why people get angry talking about this stuff. I just told you that it wasn't an impossible leap of logic because we develop new techniques constantly, and it's likely that, in the future, we'll have better ways of researching how life formed because of those. I just backed it up, and you just read what you wanted to.
And by the way, people should ask you to back up what you say. If you just accept things people tell you and don't care for the reason why, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
Last post I make here.
I answered that question nearly verbatim earlier, perhaps you didn't catch it. You assume no one is realistically close, at least there is work towards that goal, which cannot be said about any alternative explanations.
Can you state what elements are there to allow you to jump high enough to touch the top of the empire state building, and from what level would you be attempting the jump? Would it be from the base of the radio tower, or the base of the building. What technological breakthroughs have lead you to believe this was possible?
You claim it is faith, I describe how I feel as trust. Since the claims and assumptions put forward by science are founded on factual evidence and observations. Blind faith, as is what is required by religion is not based on factual evidence and observation, but instead of a reliance on allegedly historical documents which change from culture to culture (and often times even within the same culture).
Let's go for this example. I believe microorganisms can emerge which can use arsenic as apart of their chemical make-up (something which has been postulated and would give life a broader pallet of elements to arise from). Nasa brought evidence supporting the observation of such micro-organisms in California. If science were based on the same faith as religion were, that would be an open and shut case! Why would anyone question that? Oh, it caused a furor! Not because molecular biologists doubted that such organisms could exist, it was because the quality of science was questionable!
Science changes, new observations refine theories or does away with them. If blind faith were involved no one would even bother trying to replicate life in a petri-dish...why try to re-create anything? Just stating it is so is good enough, and I would assert that it is not necessary to give you an example of what could disprove hypothetically abiogenesis.
I what... never mind.
Amibguous Cad
Member
This contention fails the barest requirements of empiricism.
Bungalow Bob
Banned
Let's say in the future we have the technology to scan you and then have little machines make another copy of you with the same molecules in the same relative positions (obviously this is intelligent design). In this case we would expect the copy of you will have exactly the same memories, beliefs and desires that you do. If your copy isn't just as alive as you are, then abiogenesis is disproven and we realize that life really is magical.
As for abiogenesis on the primordial Earth, it was just a matter of what a human would consider a series of improbable molecular collisions (fyi: when a liquid is still, its molecules are constantly in motion - this is what causes pressure).
Understanding levitation will help you understand abiogenesis. There is a certain probability that you will start to levitate while reading this sentence. The exact probability doesn't matter, but let's say that on average, you will levitate once every 10^1000 billion years. Since you only live about 0.0000001 billion years, you consider levitation impossible, but if you lived far longer, you'd consider it normal.
Well said.
If religious people want to put religion into the realm of empiricism and scientific scrutiny, they need to deal with the fact that it does NOT hold up.
Like that'll ever happen, though....
DragonGirl
Banned
You are confusing faith and trust. I trust the sun will rise because of is track record and knowledge of how the solar system operates. Faith is something you give away for free. Trust is something that is earned.
As for metaphysical, it's a word that just acts as a placeholder for "I don't know what" while trying to cheat and say "I know the answer".
Words are hard, but hopefully the spirit of my message came through, this trust is different than faith.
And I'm not a fan of the metaphysical concept either
Sanky Panky
Banned
One thing is comming up with new software or technology, another is striking energy in different ways at a puddle of chemicals to try to spring up life. Perhaps our understanding on the earth's conditions at that time will radically change, but the laws of nature will not change. After decades of experimentation, scientists run into these laws head first that block any attempts.
Log4Girlz said:
I don't have to assume we are not close. Experiments have been able to yield only a few of the building blocks of life. I don't want to be accused of derailing this thread, so I'll just say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I've seen the word insanity used for those that have religious faith. My argument is that the same can apply to some naturalistic beliefs.
Log4Girlz said:
Let's remain focused on the comparisson. I have legs (molecules), I have muscles (mechanisms for molecules to bind), I have energy (energy applied to molecules for them to bind) I can jump to a certain height (minimal building blocks have formed), so what is to say that with time I will have the right conditions to make that leap (a primordial soup yielding life), despite of what we currently know?
In my case, it takes an unfounded faith to think that I will ever be able to jump that high, but atheists have to justify themselves because there is no better alternative.
Log4Girlz said:
You DO have to give an example of what could disprove it, if you claim it is scientific. And as for blind faith, most atheists accept it because there is no other alternative, despite any evidence that it happened. Call it trust/reasonable faith or whatever, you only accept it because of your other naturalistic views, and your trust in the scientific method (not because the theory hold up to scrutiny).
So when things seem to contradict what happens in nature or what experiments say, just add probability and millions of years. Sounds like reasonable faith to me.
I won't continue to discuss abiogenesis here, but my point stands. People in this thread attack religious people for lack of critical thinking, believing thinigs because they read it in a book, believing in unseen and untestable things, when they themselves have to suspend rationality and empiricism if they are to believe everything they read in a book (writen by a scientist).
That is a terrible characterisation of abiogenesis. That isn't close to what abiogenesis posits at all.
You are equating failed abiogensis experimentation with the discovery of fundamental laws disproving abiogenesis. They are not the same thing.
Who here is using the word "insane" to describe those that have religious faith?
Irrational is a better and legitimate description of religious faith than insanity, and even then I don't see anybody characterising the religious as irrational in every aspect of their lives.
Some naturalistic beliefs might be considered irrational. Depends on what examples you want to use.
Your faith that you could ever jump that high would not only be unfounded but actually contrary to the laws governing physics, motion, and energy.
There are no known laws with suggest abiogenesis is impossible. If there were, theories of abiogenesis would already have been debunked or adapted.
Not the same thing.
Without being a molecular biologist, discovering one of more mandatory components in the chained process that destroyed both information and replication mechanisms in a necessary way would likely disprove abiogenesis.
This argument is tired and wrong.
Again, being unable to replicate a process in a lab does not necessarily "contradict" what happens in nature. If a contradiction was observed and replicated, it would be a discovery that necessarily discounted theories of abiogensis immediately. This is not what has occurred.
You are making a false comparison for reasons which have been explained over and over again in this thread.
you dont get the urge to tell people that they're wrong?
educating people is a natural impulse
Sanky Panky
Banned
Have you even read any experiments? that is pretty much what they do, and what would be required for life to start. Are you denying the need for energy?
Nope, I'm explaining failed abiogenesis experimentations BECAUSE of fundamental natural laws, such as thermodynamics. Of course, scientists add probability in billions of years to get around that. Once again, it's the only explanation they have.
Can't be bothered to go through this and other threads for posts.
I love how you use the word adapted, because that's exactly what they have to do. They have to suspend belief in scientific experimentations, and natural laws, and they have to adapt abiogenesis. Hell, they are in such a dead end that in the video posted here it was suggested that maybe we have to redefine what "life" even is. Thank you for backing my point.
What if they have a process and component that is part of the mechanism, that destroyed the information? it's called, undirected energy being applied to chains of amino-acids.
How do observations that directly contradict the hypothesis not enough? Oh yeah, time and probability... nevermind.
You talk about the lack of progress for decades when it comes to Abiogenesis research Panky, but... I mean you saw the video I posted earlier showing successful protocell experiments, these are not old experiments, these are very new experiments - and it REALLY highlights the line between life and non-life being not that significant. Its not a binary 1 or 0, but probably something closer to a 10 point sliding scale from what we regularly perceive to be non-life and life.
Tell me, if they have in an environment, protocells that form with pretty much no intervention, that can move, duplicate and consume food/energy - when does it become 'life'?
Take it further, and read up about the criteria of life, and what constitutes it - if we make something in a lab that seems like 'life' - but doesn't act like regular cells that we have in our bodies, have we failed? What if we do it again and again, and each time - we get something different, but each time, it acts as 'life' does?
Edit: And MOST IMPORTANTLY
The Abiogenesis theory has NOTHING to do with being Atheist. It doesn't make your position any more... concrete if the Abiogenesis theory was 100% false, and it doesn't make my position any less concrete if I wasn't convinced by the theory of Abiogenesis at all.
If you ask me where life came from, and I said 'Have no idea, but I still don't believe in God(s)" - does my position weaken?
Tell me, if they have in an environment, protocells that form with pretty much no intervention, that can move, duplicate and consume food/energy - when does it become 'life'?
Take it further, and read up about the criteria of life, and what constitutes it - if we make something in a lab that seems like 'life' - but doesn't act like regular cells that we have in our bodies, have we failed? What if we do it again and again, and each time - we get something different, but each time, it acts as 'life' does?
Edit: And MOST IMPORTANTLY
The Abiogenesis theory has NOTHING to do with being Atheist. It doesn't make your position any more... concrete if the Abiogenesis theory was 100% false, and it doesn't make my position any less concrete if I wasn't convinced by the theory of Abiogenesis at all.
If you ask me where life came from, and I said 'Have no idea, but I still don't believe in God(s)" - does my position weaken?
Your characterisation was basically the old "lightning striking a puddle of mud". That isn't close to what abiogenesis posits.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I'll take it on faith you saw someone say that.
They incorporate new findings and data, and reform the hypothesis. They adapt with new information. That is fundamental to the scientific method and how scientific progress works.
"Suspend belief in scientific experiementations and natural laws"? You suggestions are getting ever more ridiculous, and demonstrate limited understanding of the scientific method.
How does the theory lose credibility because we have actually exposes that our prior understanding of what life is is actually incomplete and does not account for what might otherwise be considered a grey area between inert matter and "living" organisms?
Again, adapting to new information is fundamental to the scientific method. It is a strength, not a weakness.
If you have the answer then I suggest you write up the paper quickly so you can claim your Nobel Prize.
There is a difference between an observation that does not prove a hypothesis and one that disproves it. You are failing to understand that.
Again, a failed experiment does not necessarily disprove a hypothesis unless it exposes new information which demonstrates a requirement as to why the hypothesis is flawed.
For example, in trying to launch a rocket to outer space there were many failures. Eventually there was success. The failed experiments did not demonstrate a fundamental inability to be able to launch a rocket into space, because they did not suggest, for example, that the energy required to escape Earth's gravity would be more than the energy that could be stored in a rocket.
Experimentation surrounding abiogenesis has not contradicted (disproven) the underlying hypotheses.
We've yielded building block of life, PROGRESS. But of course, you do a few experiments then quit right? I mean, that's how it worked with all other scientific experiments...oh no wait that's not what happens. They refine their experiments and observations to continue progressing their results. How you judge the "closeness" of success is irrelevant here. No one is praying for a miracle, we're using our intellect as a species to create something.
Invalid comparison is invalid. You are comparing a perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis with superhuman powers because your legs exist?
Yes, in your example you require unfounded faith. In the example of atheists you have all of science founding abiogenesis. I will choose the the belief grounded in science. This has value, as opposed to blind religious faith grounded in nothing.
Well, yes, there is a trust in the scientific method and the results that come from it. There is a reason there are no viable alternatives to abiogenesis, or evolution. You must think of hypothetical scenarios to discredit them but they CAN hypothetically be discredited.
Example. When evolution was contentious in the scientific community, there was doubt about the age of the solar system, because no one had envisioned a system in which the sun could burn for billions of years, the time required for that theory to be true. Well, then came the theory of nuclear fusion. Evolution became indisputably stronger from that observation. But theoretically, if earth was young, you cannot have evolution.
Religious faith cannot be swayed by anything. Who can say who is more right about any religious subject?
Well, we are doing none of the things you claim. You are comparing apples to oranges. They may both be fruit, but they are not the same. Again, why bother even recreating any of the building block of life which were once thought impossible to recreate in a laboratory condition? Why? Faith should dictate we just write a tomb with a bunch of theories and never observe or test further, we just agree upon it and call it a day. To claim we are suspending rationality is delusional.
Dude Abides
Banned
Scientists have been trying to cure cancer for decades and we stil got cancer. They should probably give up.
That reminds me of when George Bush banned stem cell research and Laura Bush said something to the effect of "It will take years to develop cures from this research and that's hurting sick people by creating false hope."
Seems that this is one of those questions that get deliberately ignored.
1) I never said that god did anything.
2) If god is understood to be eternally existing, without beginning and without end, then the point is moot.
Worldwide impact of militant atheists : a few angry forum posts, ironic hipsters, and embarrassingly terrible FSM posters.
Worldwide impact of militant Christian/Muslims/etc: World-changing power including international money, political influence, and ability to mobilize and use violence and death.
The two groups' impacts are not comparable. Religious power completely destroys atheism by a huge margin.
Freezie KO
Banned
:lol
Lionheart1337
Member
Amazing.
Luckily there are no atheists who ordered the death of all religious sects in their countries like Stalin.
Except the Science path is exactly what the Catholic church does because they actually support scientists now.
Lionheart1337
Member
Because it's the internet, where people aren't afraid to rock the boat. And religion is an important topic, as it effects the lives of many, like politics.
Monocle
Member
I wish I were allowed to invent magical categories for things I can't otherwise justify.
"OK officer, I know it looked like I was speeding, but check this shit out: My car exists in all its potential positions along a given route. Thuswise and ergo, it was actually parked the whole time and the spatiotemporal bias of your senses prevented you from realizing the truth. Can I go now?"
'im sorry i didnt know stalin did what he did because of his atheism *facepalm*
only that their core beliefs are still very much the right side of that picture, and they arent doing research themselves.
they only adopted part of science to look less retarded in this day and age
Meh. 2/10. Not for lack of effort, though.
Monocle
Member
10/10 for your flawless cop-out.
- Status