Support NeoGAF

[Sanky Panky]

RNA is one of DNA's individual parts. You heard it here first, GAF.

RNA is a single strand, so abiogenesis proposes that it was the precursor, a part of DNA later. Don't be obtuse.

What hasn't held up to scrutiny exactly? The Abiogenesis theory is not a very strong one, not yet - it's the one that currently makes the most sense, so people default to it if forced to make a decision - but a decision isn't necessary - you can say "This seems to be the most likely, but I guess we really don't know for sure yet" - what happens then?

I'd say that it's not even likely to begin with (as evidence shows).

You don't have basis for your faith, what you've tried to do so far is to somehow insinuate that having 'faith' in Science is the same as having 'faith' in something absolutely baseless. That has gone extremely embarrassing for you so far.

I've only argued that the naturalistic view of the origin of life is baseless, and it is equivalent to my faith in a higher power. Nowhere have I extrapolated this to imply that useful scientific endeavors require faith, when they are perfectly testable and advance our civilization.

 

[DCKing]

Absolutely wrong. Indeed DNA is a further down step in abiogenesis, because it is unfathomable to the human mind based on experiments that something as complex as DNA could spring up by itself (which was the abiogenesis hypothsis for a long time). The only "better idea" that scientists have about the origin of DNA is that it's individual parts (mostly RNA) came first. Therefore, scientists trying to test for abiogenesis have to hypothesize how RNA came to be.

Stanley Miller ("father" of modern abiogenesis) abandoned the notion of RNA being able to be made by natural processes in a pre-biotic world, so he had to turn to PNA which is even less complex than RNA. The problem of abiogenesis revolves around the question of how DNA (our current information mechanism) and it's components came to be.

So they are different things, right? DNA is assembled through natural selection by earlier life-chemistry. Life-chemistry starts with self-replicating chemicals, from which point natural selection allows more complex stuff to happen. That's what I mean.

It has already been shown that RNA-like structures of several hundreds of bases (which is pretty complex but still rather short of what we see in cells) that show a capability of limited self-replication can be generated spontaneously in ice with some naturally occurring amino acids in it. I've quoted the article earlier, but here it is again.

 

[Kinitari]

I'd say that it's not even likely to begin with (as evidence shows).

There's more evidence for abiogenesis than anything else - therefore, it's the most likely theory currently available to us. Does that wording make sense to you?

I've only argued that the naturalistic view of the origin of life is baseless, and it is equivalent to my faith in a higher power. Nowhere have I extrapolated this to imply that useful scientific endeavors require faith, when they are perfectly testable and advance our civilization.

It's not baseless - it's based on our understanding of the natural world, some important lessons we've learned from evolution, our ever expanding and growing understand of what constitutes life and if you want to get right down to it, we're made up non-living things. It's based on quite a few different things really, what's the belief in God based on?

THAT's the difference.

 

[Raist]

RNA is a single strand, so abiogenesis proposes that it was the precursor, a part of DNA later. Don't be obtuse.

RNA can be double strand and is no way "a part of DNA". It can be both a precursor or a product of DNA. I'm not being obtuse, I'm being accurate. It's quite important in science.

 

[Sanky Panky]

It's not baseless - it's based on our understanding of the natural world, some important lessons we've learned from evolution, our ever expanding and growing understand of what constitutes life and if you want to get right down to it, we're made up non-living things. It's based on quite a few different things really, what's the belief in God based on?

THAT's the difference.

It's baseless when one finally abandons the notion that onlu natural processes occur, and one interprets the observations and experiments at face value. The origin of life via naurall processes is not only improbable, but it goes against what we observe.

RNA can be double strand and is no way "a part of DNA". It can be both a precursor or a product of DNA. I'm not being obtuse, I'm being accurate. It's quite important in science.

RNA (single strand compared to double-stranded DNA) can fold unto itself to perform certain functions. In the context of abiogenesis, it is presented as the precursor. Please double check you "accuracy."

 

[oneils]

...I can't speak for all the different types of faith out there, but that is what faith is and it's based on experience (That's all sunrises/sunsets are) and often to the point of tedium.

You kind of lost me here. All conclusions we make about natural phenomena are based on faith?

 

[Kinitari]

It's baseless when one finally abandons the notion that onlu natural processes occur

No, it's still not baseless - it's still based on a lot of things, EVEN if you want to say that non-natural processes occur in our world.

and one interprets the observations and experiments at face value. The origin of life via naurall processes is not only improbable, but it goes against what we observe.

Like, we have a billion things we've observed that give more and more evidence to this being probable. The simple chemicals that behave life like. RNA forming naturally in ice, arsenic replacing phosphate in DNA pair bonding (implying that DNA is not as rigid and divinely inspired as you think).

We have NO evidence to the contrary, none. Our observations ALL point to Abiogenesis being the most likely scenario. I don't even know how you are saying that our observations say otherwise.

You kind of lost me here. All conclusions we make about natural phenomena are based on faith?

I'm telling you, when people really start to understand what faith means, some become ashamed of it. Look, JGS - I have 'faith' in a lot of baseless things, trusting in the non-chaotic nature of our universe and our ability to understand, observe, manipulate and predict changes in it is absolutely not the same thing as the faith you keep trying to equivocate it with.

 

[Raist]

RNA (single strand compared to double-stranded DNA) can fold unto itself to perform certain functions.

I guess you're not aware of double strand RNA found both in viruses and eucaryotic cells then. Oh well. More reading for you.

 

[Uchip]

Uchip and Log are clearly gnostic atheists. If not, I wouldn't be defending the position of agnostic atheist as being rational against them.

I prefer to be labelled an existential nihilist rather than atheist.
God is a nonfactor and not worthy of thought. Its the same as believing in a series of random digits

Spoiler

a complete waste of time

for all intents and purposes, and for the sake of discussion, there is no god. You cannot make the positive assertion that there isn't one, but like i said, there is no reason to even discuss it.

your words were not suggesting that agnostic atheism was rational, they were explicitly stating that its far and away the most rational perspective, with which I disagree.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's baseless when one finally abandons the notion that onlu natural processes occur, and one interprets the observations and experiments at face value. The origin of life via naurall processes is not only improbable, but it goes against what we observe.

We have never observed anything that is supernatural. Positing some other intelligent life form, like aliens for instance, as the origin of life on earth doesn't solve the problem of the ultimate origin of life. Where did the aliens come from? Eventually we need a mechanism that produces life from non-life, and we have absolutely nothing we've ever seen to suggest that mechanism is supernatural.

 

[Satyamdas]

I prefer to be labelled an existential nihilist rather than atheist.

That's fine. Existential nihilist is more specific and descriptive than "atheist" so I understand preferring that label.

This topic however, is about theistic beliefs and as a consequence has delved into atheism as well. You've made clear that when it comes to belief in god you have none. So atheist is still an apt descriptor for you. Further, your steadfast certainty about the nonexistence of any higher power shows that you would be more accurately described as gnostic than agnostic. You've made it clear that you are certain that no god exists.

your words were not suggesting that agnostic atheism was rational, they were explicitly stating that its far and away the most rational perspective, with which I disagree.

No, I said agnostic atheism is the most rational starting position with respect to belief in god.

It's basically "I don't believe god exists, and even if it did, I'm not sure it can even be detected". This is a pragmatic approach because it doesn't assert anything which can't be proven, and it allows for new information to influence the position.

As soon as you say "God does not exist, and I know this to a certainty", you are making a claim you can't possibly back up (except by faith), AND you are closing yourself off to the possibility that new information may come to light which could inform you further on the subject. This is a far less rational position to take than simply saying "I don't know".

Likewise, the statement "God does exist, and I know this to a certainty" is also less rational than saying "I don't know".

 

[Uchip]

Likewise, the statement "God does exist, and I know this to a certainty" is also less rational than saying "I don't know".

Its more like, I dont know, but you could say that about infinitely anything
so as far as intentions go, its as good as being certain.

how can agnostic atheism be the most rational when it gives possibility to useless and unproductive thought?
evidence against the position of supernatural possibility is the exponential growth of knowledge that is science, and to give even the slightest credibility to a deity is to tread backwards.

 

[Satyamdas]

Its more like, I dont know, but you could say that about infinitely anything

Of course you can infinitely regress until you don't even know whether you yourself exist or not. Hume and Descartes have a lot of interesting things to say about that.

so as far as intentions go, its as good as being certain.

Intentions are irrelevant. When you make a claim to know something with certainty, it doesn't matter what your motivations are. The question becomes, do you have evidence to support the claim or not?

how can agnostic atheism be the most rational when it gives possibility to useless and unproductive thought?
evidence against the position of supernatural possibility is the exponential growth of knowledge that is science, and to give even the slightest credibility to a deity is to tread backwards.

God does not exist.
Science does exist.
Therefore, the existence of science is evidence God does not exist.

This is your logic at work? This is how much thought you have given to the idea? I'd be laughing if it wasn't so remarkably pitiful.

 

[Uchip]

Of course you can infinitely regress until you don't even know whether you yourself exist or not. Hume and Descartes have a lot of interesting things to say about that.


Intentions are irrelevant. When you make a claim to know something with certainty, it doesn't matter what your motivations are. The question becomes, do you have evidence to support the claim or not?


God does not exist.
Science does exist.
Therefore, the existence of science is evidence God does not exist.

This is your logic at work? This is how much thought you have given to the idea? I'd be laughing if it wasn't so remarkably pitiful.

either way you aren't worth talking to if you continue to dish out ad hominem and expect people to take you seriously.
If you dont understand what I said then its your fault, not mine.
once again you are not arguing a point.

to actually have any kind of practical discussion you have to invoke certainty at some point.
and with your massive ammounts of posting in this thread, one would hope for at least something other than self important trolling.

 

[Tawpgun]

either way you aren't worth talking to if you continue to dish out ad hominem and expect people to take you seriously.
If you dont understand what I said then its your fault, not mine.
once again you are not arguing a point.

to actually have any kind of practical discussion you have to invoke certainty at some point.
and with your massive ammounts of posting in this thread, one would hope for at least something other than self important trolling.

You look like the guy from Ferris Beuller.

Now that that's out of the way I suppose I'll contribute to this thread.

You can't back up any faith. Not rationally. That should be clear to theists and atheists. Faith itself contradicts any notion to back it up because faith requires no empircal evidence. That's what faith is by definition.

Does anyone really disagree with this assessment? The whole idea is you're not supposed to back up faith... You just believe because you feel that is what's right.

 

[Uchip]

You look like the guy from Ferris Beuller.

ive only heard this 10 times since the beginning of January!

You can't back up any faith. Not rationally. That should be clear to theists and atheists. Faith itself contradicts any notion to back it up because faith requires no empircal evidence. That's what faith is by definition.

Does anyone really disagree with this assessment? The whole idea is you're not supposed to back up faith... You just believe because you feel that is what's right.

Certainty is a cognitive position, its something that Satyamdas refuses to accept. You can be certainly wrong.
one can never escape human bias; there is no such thing as natural objectivity; the degree to which we can be certain about anything is dependent on how well we can observe it.
And among the sufficiently skeptical, continued certainty relies on continued observations.
Which is essentially the scientific method in a nutshell. Continuing to test and retest known theories in an attempt to disprove them.

 

[Satyamdas]

either way you aren't worth talking to if you continue to dish out ad hominem and expect people to take you seriously.
If you dont understand what I said then its your fault, not mine.
once again you are not arguing a point.

I understood what you said just fine. The problem is that what you said is so thoroughly devoid of reason or logic, so lacking in even basic level intelligence, that responding to it as if it were a sound argument is simply out of the question. I am honestly shocked that you consider this to be a valid argument:

God does not exist.
Science does exist.
The existence of science is evidence that God does not exist.

Beyond being circular it's just flat out stupid. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to say it.

to actually have any kind of practical discussion you have to invoke certainty at some point.
and with your massive ammounts of posting in this thread, one would hope for at least something other than self important trolling.

I'm not trolling, I am genuinely curious how an adult (who I assume has normal mental faculties), can possibly be this reductive and oblivious?

Certainty is a cognitive position, its something that Satyamdas refuses to accept. You can be certainly wrong.
one can never escape human bias; there is no such thing as natural objectivity; the degree to which we can be certain about anything is dependent on how well we can observe it.

When did I refuse to accept certainty as being a cognitive position? Of course it's a cognitive position. What else could it possibly be?!

I think I've allowed myself to be bogged down in your logical morass long enough, and so I will bow out now. I give you the final word.

 

[Uchip]

I think I've allowed myself to be bogged down in your logical morass long enough, and so I will bow out now. I give you the final word.

thank you for your non contribution, all 77 posts worth.
it is amusing that you can call reductionism when you came up with this gem

"God does not exist.
Science does exist.
The existence of science is evidence that God does not exist."

 

[Sanky Panky]

Like, we have a billion things we've observed that give more and more evidence to this being probable. The simple chemicals that behave life like. RNA forming naturally in ice, arsenic replacing phosphate in DNA pair bonding (implying that DNA is not as rigid and divinely inspired as you think).

Sensationalism doesn't help your case, especially when it come to evidence for abiogenesis. What are you referring to RNA forming naturally in ice? please don't tell me you mean the "discovery" that RNA can only survive in ice (after it was magically created of course) or else it would break apart by our wonderful natural laws. The funny thing is is that other components of DNA need extreme hot temperatures to survive.

I guess you're not aware of double strand RNA found both in viruses and eucaryotic cells then. Oh well. More reading for you.

You mean two individual complimentary RNA strands stuck together right? Remember, scientists don't like the idea of explaining one RNA strand assembling by itself, much less two complimentary ones.

 

[Tawpgun]

ive only heard this 10 times since the beginning of January!



Certainty is a cognitive position, its something that Satyamdas refuses to accept. You can be certainly wrong.
one can never escape human bias; there is no such thing as natural objectivity; the degree to which we can be certain about anything is dependent on how well we can observe it.
And among the sufficiently skeptical, continued certainty relies on continued observations.
Which is essentially the scientific method in a nutshell. Continuing to test and retest known theories in an attempt to disprove them.

Don't see where you're going here. Disagreeing with me? You believe that theists can back up their faith in any real way?

 

[Uchip]

Don't see where you're going here. Disagreeing with me? You believe that theists can back up their faith in any real way?

im not disagreeing with you in any way
just trying to make sense of the troll, who seems to be someone that took some kind of philosophy paper, then dropped out and has nothing better to do than argue for the hell of it.

and if you dont believe hes a troll heres the basic definition: someone that posts in a derogatory manner such as to get an inflammatory response;

"I'd be laughing if it wasn't so remarkably pitiful. "
"I am genuinely curious how an adult (who I assume has normal mental faculties), can possibly be this reductive and oblivious?"
"My work here is done. "
"LOL, watching you squirm is funny."
"I've made it a point to try and ignore your inane strawmen, but unfortunately my will has been shown to be weak since I eventually give in and indulge you. "
"So basically you're illiterate. Cool! "
"Fallacies? I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was simply pointing and laughing. "
"I'm happy for them. "
"Oh boo fucking hoo, someone other than an angry atheist used some snark"
"Meh. 2/10. Not for lack of effort, though. "

etc, from the first page of recent post results

 

[akira28]

God loves {these} threads

It's strange that I alternate between attacking religion and defending it. I want to weaken the beast, but I still want there to be a beast.

 

[Satyamdas]

thank you for your non contribution, all 77 posts worth.

What is this, a pissing contest?

Why do you keep bringing up post counts when you have 120 posts and all of them combined don't form a single coherent thought or worthwhile point?

it is amusing that you can call reductionism when you came up with this gem

"God does not exist.
Science does exist.
The existence of science is evidence that God does not exist."

Do you not remember what you posted mere minutes ago?

for all intents and purposes, and for the sake of discussion, there is no god.

how can agnostic atheism be the most rational when it gives possibility to useless and unproductive thought?
evidence against the position of supernatural possibility is the exponential growth of knowledge that is science, and to give even the slightest credibility to a deity is to tread backwards.

There is no god.
We have exponential growth of science.
Science is evidence god does not exist, and the proof is so solid that we must not give even the slightest credibility to the idea of the existence of god.

These are your words, and your piss poor logic.

 

[Uchip]

totally not a reductionist right?
if the possibility that something exists is infinitesimal then there is not point in acknowledging it, especially in terms of practicality.
is this too hard for you to comprehend or should I simplify it further?

you are demanding skepticism and yet totally contradicting yourself by making positive assertions, which are ridiculous considering recent strides.
i cant believe nobody has pointed this out

We have only had an understanding of molecular biology for several decades, and we have already identified all the different proteins in DNA

 

[Satyamdas]

if the possibility that something exists is infinitesimal then there is not point in acknowledging it, especially in terms of practicality.

How did you come up with this measurement?

Is the possibility that god exists .0000000000001%? .000001%? .1%? 1%? By what means can you arrive at a number?

Now, what do you think the chances are that a random combination of chemicals would interact and spark into life? .0000000000001%? .000001%? .1%? 1%?

By your logic, we should not even acknowledge the theory of abiogenesis since the chance of it happening is infinitesimally small.

Do you see how close-minded you are? How insanely narrow and limited your thinking is? If everyone operated by your logic we would still be in caves rubbing sticks together to make fire.

You don't have to believe god exists in order to think critically about the subject. You don't become instantly converted to some religion just because you allow yourself to ponder big questions. You seem irrationally scared by the concept, as if by merely considering the idea of a higher power you will instantly be a slave to the god boogeyman. I find it equally fascinating and depressing that you fear thoughtful contemplation. Or maybe you're just not good at it.

 

[Log4Girlz]

How did you come up with this measurement?

Is the possibility that god exists .0000000000001%? .000001%? .1%? 1%? By what means can you arrive at a number?

Now, what do you think the chances are that a random combination of chemicals would interact and spark into life? .0000000000001%? .000001%? .1%? 1%?

By your logic, we should not even acknowledge the theory of abiogenesis since the chance of it happening is infinitesimally small.

Do you see how close-minded you are? How insanely narrow and limited your thinking is? If everyone operated by your logic we would still be in caves rubbing sticks together to make fire.

You don't have to believe god exists in order to think critically about the subject. You don't become instantly converted to some religion just because you allow yourself to ponder big questions. You seem irrationally scared by the concept, as if by merely considering the idea of a higher power you will instantly be a slave to the god boogeyman. I find it equally fascinating and depressing that you fear thoughtful contemplation. Or maybe you're just not good at it.

I ask you one final question in my previous post. I am making a claim that leprechauns, which I have absolutely no knowledge, proof, evidence or experience with do not exist in the center of the moon. By your definition, is that claim based on faith?

Can you contemplate my question and give me an answer?

 

[Uchip]

I thought he "bowed out" hours ago
not sure who hes trying to impress really

 

[radios shipping overview]

I'm only clicking on this thread to mention that this thread title, which keeps popping up, is absolutely tedious. And I'm an atheist.

 

[Log4Girlz]

So anyhoo, while waiting for a potential answer, or if one never comes, its interesting to contemplate the chances for life on earth. I've read a good article which summed up my own reasoning. The chances were quite small for any set of chemicals to interact and create life in any given moment in that one given pool of primordial ooze. Let's say its one in a 100 trillion. Well there are octillions of atoms and nearly identical molecules in said primordial ooze and potentially thousands, or millions of similar sites through out the globe if we are accurate in our estimation of the early earth.

So, on earth it was inevitable given the conditions. Now, how many potential earths with similar conditions are elsewhere in the universe? This is when you play around with Drake's equation and you can at least get an idea of how many bodies may just have simple bacterial life and not even think about possible civilizations. Well, the number is potentially and reasonably astounding in scope and it is safe to say the odds of life NOT occurring elsewhere in the universe is so small as to not even warrant discussion. Its no longer a question of if, its a question of where and how many.

 

[jaxword]

I thought he "bowed out" hours ago
not sure who hes trying to impress really

Every single person who says they're leaving is a complete and total liar and only says that for attention/immature parting shots. Otherwise they wouldn't even say it.

They only do so because they realize their arguments aren't working but aren't man enough to admit it, but they think they're saving face by letting everyone know they're still right and are going home.

A real life example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NndeqCwjHpk

 

[Uchip]

Every single person who says they're leaving is a complete and total liar and only says that for attention/immature parting shots. Otherwise they wouldn't even say it.

They only do so because they realize their arguments aren't working but aren't man enough to admit it, but they think they're saving face by letting everyone know they're still right and are going home.

A real life example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NndeqCwjHpk

I left the internet once
it wasnt pretty

 

[jaxword]

I left the internet once
it wasnt pretty

No you didn't...because no one ever truly leaves...

 

[JGS]

Again, past evidence. There are many many indications that the plausibility of the sun rising tomorrow is very high. Could it not? Sure. But its almost certainly going to happen.
Please please please show me the comparable evidence for the core claims of any religious faith?

Again, past claims and current experience is what faith is based on. Otherwise, why would there be a confidence in the expectation? Again this is simply making or specifying a definition. Faith is in part based on past experience. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

You just aren't satisfied with that and who cares about that?

The core claims are religious based not scientific which is the only flaw in the analogy. However, there are many things we place faith in that have nothing to do with religion or science and examples have been given time again across many threads and they are summarily dismissed. however, that doesn't mean one actually has the actual authority to dismiss them. It's only because they dislike it. I dismiss the notion that science favors non-belief (Yay science threads), but that doesn't get me anywhere either.

Arguing what faith is when you don't have a clue what it is remains a silly premise- something stated back on page 1.

 

[Uchip]

examples have been given time again across many threads and they are summarily dismissed.

care to share at least one of the examples?

 

[Log4Girlz]

dismiss the notion that science favors non-belief (Yay science threads), but that doesn't get me anywhere either.

Science encourages rejecting overly complex assumptions. For instance, it may actually be the case that life on earth really was started by leprechauns. This may actually be the case. Who are we to say it didn't? Were we there? But any assumption of this would just be faulty. Religious claims call for an infinitely complex life form being responsible for everything. Talk about a complex assumption not based on any data. Science favors non-belief, not that it makes it true.

 

[Uchip]

Science encourages rejecting overly complex assumptions. For instance, it may actually be the case that life on earth really was started by leprechauns. This may actually be the case. Who are we to say it didn't? Were we there? But any assumption of this would just be faulty. Religious claims call for an infinitely complex life form being responsible for everything. Talk about a complex assumption not based on any data. Science favors non-belief, not that it makes it true.

you really like leprechauns

 

[Log4Girlz]

you really like leprechauns

I ate a lot of lucky charms.

 

[JGS]

Science encourages rejecting overly complex assumptions. For instance, it may actually be the case that life on earth really was started by leprechauns. This may actually be the case. Who are we to say it didn't? Were we there? But any assumption of this would just be faulty. Religious claims call for an infinitely complex life form being responsible for everything. Talk about a complex assumption not based on any data. Science favors non-belief, not that it makes it true.

This is not true. It assumes things all the time and waits for the time for them to be proven. The things that are impossible to prove (How life got here), they come up with a notion that fits with what they know & what they think they know. It's not even patient about it.

Are you being scientific & analytic in regards to what you know faith is? Faith is not based on assumption. In fact, I'm not even sure how that even fits.

 

[Uchip]

This is not true. It assumes things all the time and waits for the time for them to be proven.

Its called a hypothesis and it doesn't "wait" to be proven, its progressed towards.

It's not even patient about it.

but you just said it waits?

Faith is not based on assumption. In fact, I'm not even sure how that even fits.

what is faith based on?
Ill ask again for the examples you're talking about

 

[Satyamdas]

Can you contemplate my question and give me an answer?

The claim that leprechauns do not exist in the moon is not a very fantastical one. In fact, given what we know about the moon, and given that we know leprechauns are the subject of Earth-based folklore, it is reasonable to hold the belief that leprechauns do not live there.

Trying to compare leprechauns living in the moon to a higher power/first cause which creates and maintains the entire universe is so ridiculous I'm kind of ashamed for you that you think it is a clever analogy.

I thought he "bowed out" hours ago
not sure who hes trying to impress really

I'm not trying to impress anyone. I really wanted to end our line of discussion. I took your bait like a dummy. No big deal, though.

Every single person who says they're leaving is a complete and total liar and only says that for attention/immature parting shots. Otherwise they wouldn't even say it.

They only do so because they realize their arguments aren't working but aren't man enough to admit it, but they think they're saving face by letting everyone know they're still right and are going home.

Nothing to do with arguments not working or saving face. I've been clear and precise with everything I've said. I was hoping that Uchip would say "OK, I'll take the last word" and maybe say something intelligent or worthwhile and that would be the end of his and my discussion, but that was folly on my part. He chose to bait me and I took it like a fool. I should not have responded since it was clear by then he was out of his depth. No harm done.

 

[Dude Abides]

Trying to compare leprechauns living in the moon to a higher power/first cause which creates and maintains the entire universe is so ridiculous I'm kind of ashamed for you that you think it is a clever analogy.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, but a sneer is not an argument.

 

[Zeliard]

Which is essentially the scientific method in a nutshell. Continuing to test and retest known theories in an attempt to disprove them.

The best aspects of science are that it's self-correcting (due to being falsifiable), and that it doesn't concern itself with the feelings of humans. It's not interested in what's comfortable or convenient, and it's powerfully effective at telling - and showing - the human brain that it's looking at the world very incorrectly.

 

[KHarvey16]

Trying to compare leprechauns living in the moon to a higher power/first cause which creates and maintains the entire universe is so ridiculous I'm kind of ashamed for you that you think it is a clever analogy.

What evidence do we have pointing to a higher power/first cause that we don't have for leprechauns living in the moon?

 

[Satyamdas]

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, but a sneer is not an argument.

You're right. I think Log is a reasonably intelligent guy as well, so the fact he is putting so much stock in this lame analogy is kind of offensive to me. I definitely didn't need to respond like that.

Log, apologies for the snark. You didn't say anything that deserved it.

 

[akira28]

I ate a lot of lucky charms.

Fucking sucks that eating Lucky Charms is like a 8 dollar commitment. So magically delicious though.


I think faith is just a strong and enduring form of belief. You might believe that there are lucky charms on the moon, but what does it prove, or what would be the point of it, outside of your self? Should you be expected to defend the belief? Or prove it? I suppose, if you were to use it to be expressed outwardly, to spread the belief to convince others, or to use it as a form of authority for your control. But other than that, I wouldn't think that it would matter that you believe there are purple horseshoes and green clovers up there. Do you?

 

[Mario]

Abiogenesis is like trying to launch a rocket into space, when it is naturally impossible to get the fuel burning, and for all parts to come together.

Point me towards the research and resulting paper which has demonstrated it is fundamentally impossible.

Again, being unable to prove it is possible is not proof it is impossible. You are claiming it is a given. It is not.

You don't know how science works.

 

[Satyamdas]

What evidence do we have pointing to a higher power/first cause that we don't have for leprechauns living in the moon?

I didn't say we have any evidence, but as a philosophical concept the idea of a first mover is not on the same level as some random "belief" like sea monkeys surfing on the rings of Saturn.

We can make up an infinite number of beliefs like leprechauns in the moon, or flying spaghetti monsters riding around in celestial teacups, or keebler elves riding invisible unicorns. To try and put these random things on the same level as the idea of a first cause is not only intellectually dishonest, it's downright banal.

 

[KHarvey16]

I didn't say we have any evidence, but as a philosophical concept the idea of a first mover is not on the same level as some random "belief" like sea monkeys surfing on the rings of Saturn.

We can make up an infinite number of beliefs like leprechauns in the moon, or flying spaghetti monsters riding around in celestial teacups, or keebler elves riding invisible unicorns. To try and put these random things on the same level as the idea of a first cause is not only intellectually dishonest, it's downright banal.

Why, because you say so? Without evidence what distinguishes them beyond convention and tradition? They share precisely the same amount of reason to believe them. Your attempt to differentiate them based on some nebulous philosophical concept appears to be little more than desperation.

 

[Satyamdas]

Why, because you say so? Without evidence what distinguishes them beyond convention and tradition? They share precisely the same amount of reason to believe them. Your attempt to differentiate them based on some nebulous philosophical concept appears to be little more than desperation.

Not because I say so, but because philosophers and physicists and cosmologists and laymen throughout the ages have wrestled with the idea of a causeless universe vs. a first mover.

You really think Aristotle and Einstein dismissed the possibility of a first mover out of hand? That they considered the concept as no different from that of a fucking leprechaun chilling in the moon? You have to be completely daft or impossibly blinded by your own prejudices to believe such a thing.

 

[Uchip]

Why, because you say so? Without evidence what distinguishes them beyond convention and tradition? They share precisely the same amount of reason to believe them. Your attempt to differentiate them based on some nebulous philosophical concept appears to be little more than desperation.

closet theist perhaps?