Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

You mean you're done trying to play word games and avoid the basic tenet of the theory.

I didn't say reactions. I said the interactions which happened to spark life. Were they random or predetermined?

Heh. These are somewhat interchangeable terms.

Anyway, it's exactly like people who say that evolution doesn't make sense because it's random.
But the truth is that a part of it is ramdom, and then there's natural selection. It's very likely that abiogenesis followed a darwinian process as well. Random events happened, but they are driven by selection within the context of chemical and physical laws. It's quite simple really.

 

[Korey]

Let's have these arguments a thousand years from now, when all of these answers will have answered by science a thousand-fold. Christianity will probably have died by then, though

 

[Ashes]

Let's have these arguments a thousand years from now, when all of these answers will have answered by science a thousand-fold. Christianity will probably have died by then, though

When I thought of the op, I thought: Why are athiests so sure of something they are not supposed to be sure of? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? but Athiests aren't 100% sure. Some of them are just 99% sure. Lol. lol. etc.

 

[DCKing]

Very interesting article which does nothing to provide evidence that abiogenesis is true. As usual, the article is filled with "might have", "is believed to have", "could have", etc., and this is extrapolated into what might have happened billions of years ago. If this is good enough for you then knock yourself out. I'll remain skeptical.

That's fair enough My take on it abiogenesis isn't something magical. All it needs is natural selection to start acting on chemistry as opposed to what we usually define life as. Experimental evidence is starting to show that this is indeed possible.

It might be a very statistically improbable event to happen, but it needs to happen only once. Even after the earth's formation, it might have taken millions of years for such an event to happen, which is probably why it's kind of a hard search for biochemists to find it. Nonetheless, the available indications make abiogenesis quite likely to me. It'll never be definitely proven until actual RNA is evolved synthetically in the lab, but that is a task that perhaps cannot be completed within a lifetime. Not because of technology but because of evolution's slowness and lack of direction.

When I thought of the op, I thought: Why are athiests so sure of something they are not supposed to be sure of? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? but Athiests aren't 100% sure. Some of them are just 99% sure. Lol. lol. etc.

It's a misunderstanding that it's a contradiction that atheists are so sure about anything. None of them can claim with a right mind that God doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove a negative. Atheism and agnosticism is the observation that the beliefs in a god are unfounded and invalid. There's no real difference between atheism and agnosticism in that respect, but people usually call themselves atheist because they don't even give the idea of a god any credit (as opposed to agnostics who usually give it a somewhat realistic probability). The ideologies that claim certainty are in fact religions.

 

[Log4Girlz]

And they will be doing this by having humans set up the precise chemicals and environment needed for life to arise. Are you really incapable of seeing the irony?

No, because the early conditions of the earth did not require a human to set up, in fact it was pretty harsh compared to today's environment.

Yes, it's still you.

We will have to agree to disagree.

It doesn't irk me. But seeing as I have thousands of years of evidence pointing to life only coming from life, and I have zero evidence of life spontaneously arising from non-living matter, I think a little skepticism about the theory is warranted.

I have described the logic behind the "life from non-life" school of thought, it is based on sound logic which originates from observation. I have described some of the observations. Life arising from non-life is the natural conclusion of the evidence we have observed. It is safe to say that all reputable scientists would agree.

But back to your observations. You claim there are thousands of years of evidence pointing to life only coming from life. Do you then draw no conclusions? In science you observe, then create hypotheses and theories to further understanding and knowledge of the observed phenomena which involves drawing conclusions and exploring said conclusions through testing, experimenting, more observations.

By your reasoning, as you have only observed life come from life, then the natural conclusion there is no origin to life at all, it is an infinitely long chain of events. I am assuming you do not actually believe this.

 

[Freezie KO]

Let's have these arguments a thousand years from now, when all of these answers will have answered by science a thousand-fold. Christianity will probably have died by then, though

Please don't limit it to Christianity. The current discussion is with someone denying abiogenesis, but supporting the bhagavad gita

 

[Satyamdas]

Heh. These are somewhat interchangeable terms.

Anyway, it's exactly like people who say that evolution doesn't make sense because it's random.
But the truth is that a part of it is ramdom, and then there's natural selection. It's very likely that abiogenesis followed a darwinian process as well. Random events happened, but they are driven by selection within the context of chemical and physical laws. It's quite simple really.

I'm not even saying it doesn't make sense because it's random. To me the theory only makes sense if it IS random chance. If it isn't a random interaction then we must consider that the interactions were guided or directed.

But you then say that after random events happened, they are driven by selection. Who or what is doing the selecting? Nature? Would this not imply a level of consciousness within nature itself? Do we have any experience of an unconscious entity being able to select something?

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not even saying it doesn't make sense because it's random. To me the theory only makes sense if it IS random chance. If it isn't a random interaction then we must consider that the interactions were guided or directed.

But you then say that after random events happened, they are driven by selection. Who or what is doing the selecting? Nature? Would this not imply a level of consciousness within nature itself? Do we have any experience of an unconscious entity being able to select something?

The basic fundamental forces of the universe guides and selects properties best suited to a given environment, not intelligently but by cause and effect. For instance, who dictates the flow of a river? This large body of water, filled with atoms which act in a random manner as shown by quantum mechanics follows a very orderly path to the ocean. Its simply gravity. What vested interest does gravity have that the river heads to the ocean? None, its the cause and effect of an emergent pattern of a stupendous number of atoms reacting to the gravity field of a planetary body.

 

[Ashes]

It's a misunderstanding that it's a contradiction that atheists are so sure about anything. None of them can claim with a right mind that God doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove a negative. Atheism and agnosticism is the observation that the beliefs in a god are unfounded and invalid. There's no real difference between atheism and agnosticism in that respect, but people usually call themselves atheist because they don't even give the idea of a god any credit (as opposed to agnostics who usually give it a somewhat realistic probability). The ideologies that claim certainty are in fact religions.

Is this true? Woh. I didn't know that.

 

[Freezie KO]

But you then say that after random events happened, they are driven by selection. Who or what is doing the selecting? Nature? Would this not imply a level of consciousness within nature itself? Do we have any experience of an unconscious entity being able to select something?

You have to be kidding. Please read up on natural selection (once Wikipedia goes back up). No, nature does not have a consciousness. Natural Selection is a process. It's not a literal act of choosing.

By the way, if it rains atop a hill and there are two ridges sloping inward, the natural conditions are selecting the water to flow downward, creating a stream. No consciousness required.

edit: lol. I used the same river example as Log4Girlz. Hivemind atheists confirmed.

 

[Wiktor]

Why do so many religious people think they have a good reason for believing what they do? And also, why do they often claim that their own magical beliefs are more sophisticated than the magical beliefs of others? I've yet to hear an explanation as to why Christian beliefs, for example, are any more sophisticated than the belief in the Care Bears my sister had when she was 3.

An example of a belief that can be backed up is that it's impossible to know both where something is and how it's moving beyond a specific degree of accuracy. Anybody can check this for themself and then believe it based on reproducible first hand experience.

Edit: Why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god? Whether you believe in him or not, even a quick reading of the new testament should allow anyone to realize the character is disgusting.

Also, why do many non-fundamentalist Christians think that because they reject some Bible stories, but believe in the Jesus one, that their beliefs are more reasonable than those of fundamentalists?

If they have faith and it makes them happy, that's reason enough for them to believe in what they do.

Now, trying to back up your faith with logic or even worse- science is silly, because faith can only exist when there's an absence of proof.

 

[Vaporak]

You mean you're done trying to play word games and avoid the basic tenet of the theory.

Science wouldn't work, nor would the universe be understandable, if the universe was completely random. So no Abiogenisis wasn't random, and no it wasn't predetermined either. "Not random" doesn't mean predetermined.

 

[Vaporak]

Is this true? Woh. I didn't know that.

No it's not true, it's just a really common saying. You really shouldn't listen to any argument that uses it, just like you shouldn't listen to someone saying "well now you're just arguing semantics" in a debate.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Let me just throw in that scientists are working to reproduce the conditions of life on the early earth. If life requires an intelligent designer, this will inevitably be proven. We do not start by assuming there is one, as the observations and evidence has not lead to that line of reasoning yet. If it requires one of course. It is safe to assume, with all prevailing evidence, that assuming an intelligent force is premature and has no basis in reality.

 

[DCKing]

Is this true? Woh. I didn't know that.

It's the same why you can't definitively prove there are is no such thing as leprechauns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or that we're living in the The Matrix. The point of atheism is that you give the idea of a god and the associated myths as much credibility as the idea of leprechauns for example.

 

[Ashes]

It's the same why you can't definitively prove there are is no such thing as leprechauns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or that we're living in the The Matrix. The point of atheism is that you give the idea of a god and the associated myths as much credibility as the idea of leprechauns for example.

I see. So why are you in this thread?

 

[Satyamdas]

Science wouldn't work, nor would the universe be understandable, if the universe was completely random. So no Abiogenisis wasn't random, and no it wasn't predetermined either. "Not random" doesn't mean predetermined.

Why does abiogenesis happening randomly mean that the entire universe must also be completely random? I don't understand why you are tying the two together.

If the process which brought about life was not directed, and was not random, then what was it? What is the third option?

 

[DCKing]

And they will be doing this by having humans set up the precise chemicals and environment needed for life to arise. Are you really incapable of seeing the irony?

If you view things from the perspective that all of the Universe worked in such a way that you were the result, then it is a miracle. That is the pinnacle of solipsism and self-centeredness however.

The only reason that you and everyone else (this is a common human fallacy) who feels the universe is perfect for them is wrong however. The universe was not made for us, but we were made for the environment we live in. Life uses the chemicals in your body because those were the once natural selection could work on. There may be other combinations possible on other planets or even entirely different places.

 

[Sh1ner]

I'm not even saying it doesn't make sense because it's random. To me the theory only makes sense if it IS random chance. If it isn't a random interaction then we must consider that the interactions were guided or directed.

But you then say that after random events happened, they are driven by selection. Who or what is doing the selecting? Nature? Would this not imply a level of consciousness within nature itself? Do we have any experience of an unconscious entity being able to select something?

Didn't you do natural selection at school? In the UK we went over it a number of times across a number of years. I thought natural selection was understood by all now unless you have not come across it at all. Which to me sounds extremely difficult as every animal or life documentary overviews natural selection in some sense.

 

[DCKing]

I see. So why are you in this thread?

Because the point of this thread was to have factual backup of people's faith (which is not proving a negative), although that's a contradictio in terminis. I was interested in seeing what people would say. Outside of my atheism I'm quite passionate about the kind of stuff people believe.

 

[Freezie KO]

If the process which brought about life was not directed, and was not random, then what was it? What is the third option?

Probable?

 

[Ashes]

Because the point of this thread was to have factual backup of people's faith (which is not proving a negative), although that's a contradictio in terminis. The sheer ridiculousness of religion is something that I'm quite passionate about outside of my atheism.

Oh I see. So why are you passionate about it? are you saying, talking about god, or the lack of its existence is one of the most important things one can talk about in life. I mean whole societies are built on the concept. You are here to present the opposition's case or something?

 

[Vaporak]

Why does abiogenesis happening randomly mean that the entire universe must also be completely random? I don't understand why you are tying the two together.

If the process which brought about life was not directed, and was not random, then what was it? What is the third option?

The connection is that the universe being not random implies abiogenis being not random.
A third option is nondeterministic weighted randomness, which is what quantum theory tells us is how the universe actually operates.

 

[DCKing]

Oh I see. So why are you passionate about it? are you saying, talking about god, or the lack of its existence is one of the most important things one can talk about in life. I mean whole societies are built on the concept. You are here to present the opposition's case or something?

That's what I mean, yes

If it isn't random then that implies purpose or determinism. Or is there some third option I'm missing?

Abiogenesis is thought to have been a statistically likely emerging phenomenon on the early Earth given enough amount of time. It's close to determinism, although determinism isn't really applicable to the universe in a strict sense.

 

[OttomanScribe]

It is entirely possible to disprove a negative. For example, one can disprove the statement 'I do not exist', at least to the point where one moves into philosophy.

 

[Satyamdas]

If you view things from the perspective that all of the Universe worked in such a way that you were the result, then it is a miracle. That is the pinnacle of solipsism and self-centeredness however.

The only reason that you and everyone else (this is a common human fallacy) who feels the universe is perfect for them is wrong however. The universe was not made for us, but we were made for the environment we live in. Life uses the chemicals in your body because those were the once natural selection could work on. There may be other combinations possible on other planets or even entirely different places.

When did I say the universe is perfect for me, or works in such a way that I am the result? Why are you guys incapable of arguing without making a ton of assumptions about others?

Didn't you do natural selection at school? In the UK we went over it a number of times across a number of years. I thought natural selection was understood by all now unless you have not come across it at all. Which to me sounds extremely difficult as every animal or life documentary overviews natural selection in some sense.

I understand it perfectly. It isn't a difficult concept. But it still implies that nature is choosing, as if it has a purpose for keeping some species or traits around while letting others die off. Why should nature care? I understand that it is a process, but I'm not convinced this process is carried out completely devoid of consciousness.

The connection is that the universe being not random implies abiogenis being not random.
A third option is nondeterministic weighted randomness, which is what quantum theory tells us is how the universe actually operates.

Oh, so it's not random, its just a special fancy kind of randomness. Gotcha.

 

[Vaporak]

Oh, so it's not random, its just a special fancy kind of randomness. Gotcha.

If it helps you think of it that way you can if you want, but it has properties distinct from just normal mathematical randomness.

 

[Ashes]

That's what I mean, yes

So let me get this straight. This is a serious topic; you are passionate about it with good reason, given it's position in society and its effect on civilisation, past, present, and the future.

If you were given a box, and you did not know what was in that box, you would dismiss that box, if it had information pertaining to that most important question; you would treat it like you would treat a fairy? I mean the concept of faeries, leprechauns, god, they're all the same shit, and equally dismissible. Right?

 

[Uchip]

but I'm not convinced this process is carried out completely devoid of consciousness.

therefore god?

 

[Ashes]

It is entirely possible to disprove a negative. For example, one can disprove the statement 'I do not exist', at least to the point where one moves into philosophy.

I didn't say that, DCKing said it.

 

[DCKing]

When did I say the universe is perfect for me, or works in such a way that I am the result? Why are you guys incapable of arguing without making a ton of assumptions about others?

You didn't say this literally. That's what you implied however when you pointed out the 'irony' of the 'exact right chemicals were present on earth'. The Earth was not made with a purpose for life. That is the wrong perspective. Life was made by a directed process for replication on Earth.

Please stop being so ad hominem.

Oh, so it's not random, its just a special fancy kind of randomness. Gotcha.

If you value the word random so much, you can call it that.

We can't say anything about the likelihood for the origin of life, although lab experiments show that it isn't that unlikely. Even if it was a random event, it needed to happen just once over a period of millions of years to comply what we have now. Being random does not invalidate the theory.

 

[Satyamdas]

therefore god?

No. Therefore aliens. Try to keep up.

 

[Freezie KO]

I understand it perfectly. It isn't a difficult concept. But it still implies that nature is choosing, as if it has a purpose for keeping some species or traits around while letting others die off. Why should nature care? I understand that it is a process, but I'm not convinced this process is carried out completely devoid of consciousness.

If there are two species and only enough resources for one, the species with the best chance of survival will live and pass on its genes. The species that can't survive will die. One species goes on to live. Do you think nature "cared" in that situation? Because that's natural selection.

You're exhibiting a gross misunderstanding while simultaneously saying you understand it.

If you were given a box, and you did not know what was in that box, you would dismiss that box, if it had information pertaining to that most important question; you would treat it like you would treat a fairy? I mean the concept of faeries, leprechauns, god, they're all the same shit, and equally dismissible. Right?

Who said the box had information pertaining to that question? A tribe of illiterate desert nomads from 2000 years ago?

 

[Uchip]

No. Therefore aliens. Try to keep up.

dont ignore me
this is what you are getting at isnt it?

even if an omnipotent force sparked the first life on earth (and whatever other planets), it would not be related to or proof of any religion, and would not be any more than a word.
It also wouldnt be testable, and therefore not worth thinking about or discussing.

basically what you are doing is trolling and no more.

 

[Satyamdas]

You didn't say this literally. That's what you implied however when you pointed out the 'irony' of the 'exact right chemicals were present on earth'. The Earth was not made with a purpose for life. That is the wrong perspective. Life was made by a directed process for replication on Earth.

You completely missed the point and assumed something I didn't say and don't believe.

Please stop being so ad hominem.

Please learn what ad hominem means.

If you value the word random so much, you can call it that.

We can't say anything about the likelihood for the origin of life, although lab experiments show that it isn't that unlikely. Even if it was a random event, it needed to happen just once over a period of millions of years to comply what we have now. Being random does not invalidate the theory.

For the love of Christ, I already said that I don't think being random invalidates the theory. I said that for the theory to make any sense, it NEEDS to have been a random occurrence.

Please stop responding to me if you can't follow along.

 

[Ashes]

Who said the box had information pertaining to that question? A tribe of illiterate desert nomads from 2000 years ago?

If that's the point of that thought experiment, that thought experiment is dumb.

 

[DCKing]

If you were given a box, and you did not know what was in that box, you would dismiss that box, if it had information pertaining to that most important question; you would treat it like you would treat a fairy? I mean the concept of faeries, leprechauns, god, they're all the same shit, and equally dismissible. Right?

What? I don't understand the question properly. Not sure why I'd dismiss a box or its contents when it is a given that something is there. This is not the case when it comes to gods.

 

[Ashes]

What? I don't understand the question properly. Not sure why I'd dismiss a box or its contents when it is a given that something is there. This is not the case when it comes to gods.

Never Mind. You guys win. Etc.

 

[DCKing]

Please stop responding to me if you can't follow along.

This is no way to argue. We are done here, dear sir.

Never Mind. You guys win. Etc.

Win what? I honestly don't understand the question.

 

[Blutonium]

They were indoctrinated to believe it since birth.

Mostly this.

It's "somewhat" like discovering you've been mispronouncing a word your whole life, because you been doing it wrong since day one, but nobody told you. When someone finally tells you you've been pronouncing it wrong, you won't believe them.

I don't know if the above is a good example, but the same might go for misheard lyrics.

 

[Uchip]

This is no way to argue. We are done here, dear sir.
Win what? I honestly don't understand the question.

hes had the same response to a few people now
I think he may be illiterate and cant process the threads title correctly

 

[Satyamdas]

dont ignore me
this is what you are getting at isnt it?

even if an omnipotent force sparked the first life on earth (and whatever other planets), it would not be related to or proof of any religion, and would not be any more than a word.
It also wouldnt be testable, and therefore not worth thinking about or discussing.

basically what you are doing is trolling and no more.

You aren't even worthy of trolling. You are a joke poster, and even that may be giving you too much credit.

You did after all make the claim that Einstein "isn't up to scratch with our modern understanding of the universe". You are a clown and I will indeed ignore you from now on.

This is no way to argue. We are done here, dear sir.

Adios!

 

[Ashes]

This is no way to argue. We are done here, dear sir.
Win what? I honestly don't understand the question.

You were talking about the unknown, and that all the unknowns are equally dismissible. The god theory is as dismissible as any other unknown. Therefore an empty box, with this unknown, it doesn't matter whether its god or a fairy, they hold equal value in your opinion.

Except, you want me to seriously debate you on this most important question. You want me to give it my best shot. So I'm at loss here. How are you serious when that thing, that unknown, is to be get rid of so easily, as easily as a fairy or a spaghetti monster? what is the point of this debate, when you throw mixed messages this way?

 

[Sh1ner]

I understand it perfectly. It isn't a difficult concept. But it still implies that nature is choosing, as if it has a purpose for keeping some species or traits around while letting others die off. Why should nature care? I understand that it is a process, but I'm not convinced this process is carried out completely devoid of consciousness.


Oh, so it's not random, its just a special fancy kind of randomness. Gotcha.

From the looks of it I don’t think you do understand natural selection or some basis of logic. It seems that the only choices in your arguments is if its not Consciousness having a direct hand then its random which by default is incorrect.

Bah chrome spell checker has taken a holiday.

 

[Ashes]

Mostly this.

It's "somewhat" like discovering you've been mispronouncing a word your whole life, because you been doing it wrong since day one, but nobody told you. When someone finally tells you you've been pronouncing it wrong, you won't believe them.

I don't know if the above is a good example, but the same might go for misheard lyrics.

And how do you know, you just didn't suck up to an alternative 'truth'? Do you critically examine atheism?

edit: Have to leave, normally, I leave threads willy nilly, but I have to really go this time.

 

[Uchip]

You aren't even worthy of trolling. You are a joke poster, and even that may be giving you too much credit.

You did after all make the claim that Einstein "isn't up to scratch with our modern understanding of the universe". You are a clown and I will indeed ignore you from now on.

which he isnt...
a lot of progress has been made since the early 1900s
actually, he was devoted to the field of physics, not biology nor chemistry
you can ignore me if you want, but you're already looked down upon by pretty much everyone in this thread.

you also completely dodged my question

 

[Freezie KO]

you can ignore me if you want,

you also completely dodged my question

That's sorta been the modus operandi.

 

[Blutonium]

And how do you know, you just didn't suck up to an alternative 'truth'? Do you critically examine atheism?

edit: Have to leave, normally, I leave threads willy nilly, but I have to really go this time.

Well it seems to me they can't critically examine atheism because they have faith. Hardcore fundamentalists believe in things, and don't care for evidence. Everything they don't like is probably 'done by the devil' anyway.

 

[DCKing]

You were talking about the unknown, and that all the unknowns are equally dismissible. The god theory is as dismissible as any other unknown. Therefore an empty box, with this unknown, it doesn't matter whether its god or a fairy, they hold equal value in your opinion.

No, this is not what I said. A god and a fairy do not have an equal 'value'. If we take the regular concept of a god and fairy, then a god would be more valuable to me I guess.

What I'm saying is that whether there is a fairy or god in that box has roughly the same probability to me. Since they are both figments of human imagination, that probability is an absurdly low number.

Except, you want me to seriously debate you on this most important question. You want me to give it my best shot. So I'm at loss here. How are serious when that thing, that unknown, is to be get rid of so easily, as easily as a fairy or a spaghetti monster? what is the point of this debate, when you throw mixed messages this way?

It would be helpful here if you stated what you feel are the mixed messages I sent. Not sure if this is what you mean, but this would be my answer: the fact that I'm serious about this discussion is not because I'm serious about gods, I'm serious about the people who believe in them. People who believe in gods are actual reality.

 

[Log4Girlz]

And how do you know, you just didn't suck up to an alternative 'truth'? Do you critically examine atheism?

edit: Have to leave, normally, I leave threads willy nilly, but I have to really go this time.

What conclusions can be made by critically examining atheism?