Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.
I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a ? .
I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism
Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing
Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death
You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the ? described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.
There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"
And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:
If science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?
There are many arguments against intelligent design
One is that you're injecting a bias of your experience into your analysis of the natural world, and then support that bias with inductive arguments that compare two unlike things
Fallacious
Another is that this is not the best possible world, as shown by Tyson
Intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore not grounded in anything observable or testable
Intelligent design criticizes evolutionary perspectives with some irreducible complexity argument, which you seem to be invoking with your mention of DNA
but evolution has already explained this
There are time lines that show linear change over time which completely refute claims that the universe was made in 6 days by an invisible man in the sky
-
The analogy is not the basis of that argument btw
If there is no evidence indicating X is true why would I believe X is true
Same thing but it sounds boring
but in no way is there really a contradiction there -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.
A logical argument that supports the belief in a ? is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.
The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, ? must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."
To that I say this, I believe that certain knowledge is beyond the realm of human comprehension or understanding. The same way a cat couldn't fathom astronomy, I believe there are some things that the human mind couldn't fathom even at its peak of knowledge. I believe some things are simply unknowable and could never be explained by science. Sure in the time of Ancient Greeks the bar was much lower, but I believe that the bar has a ceiling. I think it's human arrogance to believe otherwise. Just as there are very basic limits to our perception of the world/universe around us, I think there are similarly basic limits to our understanding of it.
You may be right, but those are your beliefs not a logical argument. That's my point. Whenever you're trying to build an argument for ? 's existence, it will alway come down to belief or faith because you don't really have any tangible proof that he exists.
I don't necessarily think its arrogance for people to believe that they can continue to grow in understanding about the world around them. A couple thousand years ago, people didn't understand that viruses were the cause of a lot of sickness and disease. Most of humanity couldn't fathom that a tiny bundle of genetic material could ? of 30 percent of the human population. Now we understand viruses well enough to reverse engineer them and use them to do our bidding. -
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of ? , those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the ? of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.
Those religions and books came about their conclusions in the same exact fashion as anyone that believes in a ? . If those religions weren't around and didn't present the concept, would you independently imagine a higher being that created us? Maybe you would. Before the Abrahamic religions, people thought trees had spirits, and the Gods were many. Christians have no issue laughing their theories off because they are looked at as unsupported fables. It's not a matter of a particular religion but a particular concept presented, and debunked. There shouldn't even be a word like atheism because it gives more credence to theism as if it has a foundation to stand on. You can't be anti what isn't (as in nothing has been presented factually). To even call these presentations theories is laughable. They haven't even gone past hypothesis stage. Or at least it shouldn't default to mean anti belief in ? , rather then anti blind acceptance of unfounded ideas presented by other people.
I don't believe the issue is about whether someone imagines ? (those it is an issue in itself). It's concluding, given what we know about the beginning of the universe, that ? exist. All religions could just be wrong about who ? is, but at the very least ? should meet those qualifications that were presented...like being eternal among other things.
...and maybe I should try to explain the use of eternal as being a characteristic. The word is not being used to convey power and might. It suppose to keep us from trying to find an explanation for the explanation...or to avoid an infinite regress. On a finite scale, we know not to cross that line. If someone witnesses me making a paper airplane or playing a guitar...or hurting someone...that person is not going to look down my family tree and my family's family tree (and on...) for the explanation. They are going to credit me directly for the cause. -
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.
I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a ? .
I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism
Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing
Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death
You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the ? described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.
There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"
And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:
If science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?
There are many arguments against intelligent design
One is that you're injecting a bias of your experience into your analysis of the natural world, and then support that bias with inductive arguments that compare two unlike things
Fallacious
Another is that this is not the best possible world, as shown by Tyson
Intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore not grounded in anything observable or testable
Intelligent design criticizes evolutionary perspectives with some irreducible complexity argument, which you seem to be invoking with your mention of DNA
but evolution has already explained this
There are time lines that show linear change over time which completely refute claims that the universe was made in 6 days by an invisible man in the sky
I pretty much hit on every point in your reply in my preceding post, so maybe you should go back and re-read that. Again, i'll state that this isn't a discussion of the ? described in the Bible. You do realize that there is more than one religion in the world right? You also realize that even if EVERY religion was not true that doesn't disprove the existence of a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe?
You're injecting your bias of your experience as well when you support Tyson in the belief of the "non perfect world".
The bolded is absolutely false. Only microevolution has been observed in nature. To date macroevolution has not been observed and has not been able to be replicated. There is no explanation for the creation of genes, which would be required for the idea that life originated from single-celled organisms. Evolution only explains the mutation of such genes.
-
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.
I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a ? .
I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism
Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing
Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death
You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the ? described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.
There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"
And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:
If science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?
There are many arguments against intelligent design
One is that you're injecting a bias of your experience into your analysis of the natural world, and then support that bias with inductive arguments that compare two unlike things
Fallacious
Another is that this is not the best possible world, as shown by Tyson
Intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore not grounded in anything observable or testable
Intelligent design criticizes evolutionary perspectives with some irreducible complexity argument, which you seem to be invoking with your mention of DNA
but evolution has already explained this
There are time lines that show linear change over time which completely refute claims that the universe was made in 6 days by an invisible man in the sky
I pretty much hit on every point in your reply in my preceding post, so maybe you should go back and re-read that. Again, i'll state that this isn't a discussion of the ? described in the Bible. You do realize that there is more than one religion in the world right? You also realize that even if EVERY religion was not true that doesn't disprove the existence of a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe?
So then it's what, a discussion of a ? you made up?
What difference does it make?
You simply try to strengthen the argument by making broader assertions and being as vague as possible
It still does not have any evidence, which means there is no reason to believe itYou're injecting your bias of your experience as well when you support Tyson in the belief of the "non perfect world".
Yes, but if the deity is all good, all loving and all powerful he should be able to make the best possible world
which he failed to
Evolutionary theory accounts for this imperfect world
A ? can notThe bolded is absolutely false. Only microevolution has been observed in nature. To date macroevolution has not been observed and has not been able to be replicated. There is no explanation for the creation of genes, which would be required for the idea that life originated from single-celled organisms. Evolution only explains the mutation of such genes.
Speciation has been observed in plants and mammals -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.
A logical argument that supports the belief in a ? is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.
The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, ? must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."
To that I say this, I believe that certain knowledge is beyond the realm of human comprehension or understanding. The same way a cat couldn't fathom astronomy, I believe there are some things that the human mind couldn't fathom even at its peak of knowledge. I believe some things are simply unknowable and could never be explained by science. Sure in the time of Ancient Greeks the bar was much lower, but I believe that the bar has a ceiling. I think it's human arrogance to believe otherwise. Just as there are very basic limits to our perception of the world/universe around us, I think there are similarly basic limits to our understanding of it.
You may be right, but those are your beliefs not a logical argument. That's my point. Whenever you're trying to build an argument for ? 's existence, it will alway come down to belief or faith because you don't really have any tangible proof that he exists.
I don't necessarily think its arrogance for people to believe that they can continue to grow in understanding about the world around them. A couple thousand years ago, people didn't understand that viruses were the cause of a lot of sickness and disease. Most of humanity couldn't fathom that a tiny bundle of genetic material could ? of 30 percent of the human population. Now we understand viruses well enough to reverse engineer them and use them to do our bidding.
This post is nothing but facts. My point is the argument AGAINST the existence of ? is not logical either because the science of today doesn't fill in enough of the holes or answer all of the questions. If it's not supported by facts, or reason, then it's not logical and that goes for both sides. That's all it boils down to really. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.
A logical argument that supports the belief in a ? is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.
The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, ? must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."
To that I say this, I believe that certain knowledge is beyond the realm of human comprehension or understanding. The same way a cat couldn't fathom astronomy, I believe there are some things that the human mind couldn't fathom even at its peak of knowledge. I believe some things are simply unknowable and could never be explained by science. Sure in the time of Ancient Greeks the bar was much lower, but I believe that the bar has a ceiling. I think it's human arrogance to believe otherwise. Just as there are very basic limits to our perception of the world/universe around us, I think there are similarly basic limits to our understanding of it.
You may be right, but those are your beliefs not a logical argument. That's my point. Whenever you're trying to build an argument for ? 's existence, it will alway come down to belief or faith because you don't really have any tangible proof that he exists.
I don't necessarily think its arrogance for people to believe that they can continue to grow in understanding about the world around them. A couple thousand years ago, people didn't understand that viruses were the cause of a lot of sickness and disease. Most of humanity couldn't fathom that a tiny bundle of genetic material could ? of 30 percent of the human population. Now we understand viruses well enough to reverse engineer them and use them to do our bidding.
This post is nothing but facts. My point is the argument AGAINST the existence of ? is not logical either because the science of today doesn't fill in enough of the holes or answer all of the questions. If it's not supported by facts, or reason, then it's not logical and that goes for both sides. That's all it boils down to really.
That's an argument from ignorance
Science's inability to explain everything at present does not prove theism to be credible
Evidence would do that, but there is none
A failure on one's part is not a success on the other's
-
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.
I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a ? .
I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism
Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing
Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death
You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the ? described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.
There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"
And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:
If science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does?
There are many arguments against intelligent design
One is that you're injecting a bias of your experience into your analysis of the natural world, and then support that bias with inductive arguments that compare two unlike things
Fallacious
Another is that this is not the best possible world, as shown by Tyson
Intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore not grounded in anything observable or testable
Intelligent design criticizes evolutionary perspectives with some irreducible complexity argument, which you seem to be invoking with your mention of DNA
but evolution has already explained this
There are time lines that show linear change over time which completely refute claims that the universe was made in 6 days by an invisible man in the sky
I pretty much hit on every point in your reply in my preceding post, so maybe you should go back and re-read that. Again, i'll state that this isn't a discussion of the ? described in the Bible. You do realize that there is more than one religion in the world right? You also realize that even if EVERY religion was not true that doesn't disprove the existence of a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe?
So then it's what, a discussion of a ? you made up?
What difference does it make?
You simply try to strengthen the argument by making broader assertions and being as vague as possible
It still does not have any evidence, which means there is no reason to believe itYou're injecting your bias of your experience as well when you support Tyson in the belief of the "non perfect world".
Yes, but if the deity is all good, all loving and all powerful he should be able to make the best possible world
which he failed to
Evolutionary theory accounts for this imperfect world
A ? can notThe bolded is absolutely false. Only microevolution has been observed in nature. To date macroevolution has not been observed and has not been able to be replicated. There is no explanation for the creation of genes, which would be required for the idea that life originated from single-celled organisms. Evolution only explains the mutation of such genes.
Speciation has been observed in plants and mammals
You picked a random religion and decided to argue against the tenets of it as a representation of ALL theism. I said nothing of a deity being all good, all loving, or all powerful. These are assumptions that YOU added to the discussion. That's another straw man that you keep employing.
You seem to be under the false impression that the theory of Evolution has been settled and is agreed upon by the scientific community. Speciation has occured only as the result of the mutation of genes, NOT in the creation of them. Macroevolution has not been observed. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else. And that's what would have to be accounted for to explain that all of life originated from single-celled organisms.
-
Even if it did not come from a single cell, prove it came from a deity
-
^Proof would imply knowledge which no religion claims to have. That's why it's called belief or faith. You seem to claim that you have knowledge, without the evidence to support it. Which is why it's not logical.
-
I have no evidence to believe a ? exists
It's self explanatory
However you are using an argument from ignorance to prove something is the case, rather than prove something is not the case
It's fallacious
An absence of evidence for the existence of a ? means there is no reason to believe one exists
But the absence of evidence for abiogenesis does not prove the existence of a ?
It just fails to support Abiogenesis -
The absence of evidence for abiogenesis is in itself evidence for intelligent design. You have nothing that disproves intelligent design. That's why you kept bringing up evolution, but maybe you didn't realize how flawed the theory of evolution is? You're the one who who brought the conversation to abiogenesis without a leg to stand on.
-
If the main concern is logic then it's easily solved
If a ? Exists (P) then there is evidence for it (Q)
P -> Q
~Q
~P
Modus Tollens
Boom. Logically disproved -
If the main concern is logic then it's easily solved
If a ? Exists (P) then there is evidence for it (Q)
P -> Q
~Q
~P
Modus Tollens
Boom. Logically disproved
You're backtracking. I said DNA is evidence of intelligent design. You said "Evolution" explains DNA. I explained very clearly why evolution DOESN'T explain the complexity of DNA. Now you're throwing letters and arrows at me and honestly I don't know what any of that means and I no longer get what you're talking about.
And that STILL doesn't mean you have a sound argument.
-
You mentioned logic
That's a formal logical argument to show how P (? Exists) can be disproved
Also, /threadCreationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the chances of a complete bacterium (which is composed of hundreds or thousands of such enzymes & proteins) is so near to impossible that it would never happen in the 13 billion years or so since the universe took shape.
The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.
The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?
If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.
Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.
In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life -
Yup let's drop off paragraphs upon paragraphs of speculation and then close the thread.
-
That in which humans dont understand they attribute to ? .Rubato Garcia wrote: »Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
But that's the thing though, Earth and its systems are way more intricate than a table. If you'd never heard of manmade furniture you would probably realize anyway that what you were seeing wasn't part of nature, because of how they appeared so out of place from your average rocks, and sticks. What you would be seeing is something that was obviously crafted and designed.
For instance say somebody in the 60's stumbled across a laptop from today. They wouldn't be able to identify what they were seeing, but they would know that it wasn't some naturally occurring object.
Just under 200 year ago the cure for migranes was to drill a hole in the person's head. Why?
TO LET THE DEMONS OUT -_-
Because of course the only logical explanation at that time was, "there must be spirits in this person's head causing more pain than usual.' Now, in 2014 that is NOT a good treatment for sever headaches.
When we're dead and gone in the year 2087 the very idea of mentioning ? to explain anything scientific (especially the creation of the Earth or Universe) will be laughable.
-
That in which humans dont understand they attribute to ? .Rubato Garcia wrote: »Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
But that's the thing though, Earth and its systems are way more intricate than a table. If you'd never heard of manmade furniture you would probably realize anyway that what you were seeing wasn't part of nature, because of how they appeared so out of place from your average rocks, and sticks. What you would be seeing is something that was obviously crafted and designed.
For instance say somebody in the 60's stumbled across a laptop from today. They wouldn't be able to identify what they were seeing, but they would know that it wasn't some naturally occurring object.
Just under 200 year ago the cure for migranes was to drill a hole in the person's head. Why?
TO LET THE DEMONS OUT -_-
Because of course the only logical explanation at that time was, "there must be spirits in this person's head causing more pain than usual.' Now, in 2014 that is NOT a good treatment for sever headaches.
When we're dead and gone in the year 2087 the very idea of mentioning ? to explain anything scientific (especially the creation of the Earth or Universe) will be laughable.
Do you believe that given enough time humanity will be able to solve all of the mysteries of life and the universe through science? -
So basically you have no real argument
You mention Christianity in the OP, then claim that Christian ideals are not valid when refuting the existence of a deity because of the possibility for nonchristian deities to exist
Yet you give no evidence that any of them exist, other than a bad analogy and an argument from ignorance
It essentially gives you less constraints to prove your argument, and even then you fail to give a shred of evidence
On top of this you say that DNA is too difficult to be explained by science
However it can be
The steps understood by biochemists at present (right) show how it could have incrementally developed
On the left is a typical creationist interpretation of abiogenesis, which would be impossible
You also give no evidence as to how DNA is evidence of intelligent design
What connects the existence of DNA to a deity?
Because on the right it clearly seems that slow, linear steps can feasibly lead to the development of DNA -
And again you drop more speculation (the table on the right is an unproven theory, a BELIEF). In the OP I clearly said that I considered myself a Christian but that I wasn't necessarily talking about the Christian belief of what ? is. Speculate some more, maybe you'll prove your point.
-
And use some more straw mans maybe it'll eventually make sense( you mischaracterized my understanding of abiogenesis theory by using those two graphs).
-
You claim that it can not be explained by evolution but not why this is the case or where it fails
When one theory was presented you simply said it was speculation, despite the various processes of it all being replicated in the lab
Give some explanation as to what it is that makes it so implausible
You say Macroevolution has not been observed
macroevolution typically involves change over long periods of time, so it is difficult to see
but even then it has been observed in plants
-
Sidenote: This has probably already been mentioned, but being an atheist simply means someone does not believe in ? , it says nothing about what said person believes about the origin of the universe.
There are Atheist that believe this is all just some scientific experiment by highly advanced beings. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.
A logical argument that supports the belief in a ? is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.
The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, ? must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."
To that I say this, I believe that certain knowledge is beyond the realm of human comprehension or understanding. The same way a cat couldn't fathom astronomy, I believe there are some things that the human mind couldn't fathom even at its peak of knowledge. I believe some things are simply unknowable and could never be explained by science. Sure in the time of Ancient Greeks the bar was much lower, but I believe that the bar has a ceiling. I think it's human arrogance to believe otherwise. Just as there are very basic limits to our perception of the world/universe around us, I think there are similarly basic limits to our understanding of it.
You may be right, but those are your beliefs not a logical argument. That's my point. Whenever you're trying to build an argument for ? 's existence, it will alway come down to belief or faith because you don't really have any tangible proof that he exists.
I don't necessarily think its arrogance for people to believe that they can continue to grow in understanding about the world around them. A couple thousand years ago, people didn't understand that viruses were the cause of a lot of sickness and disease. Most of humanity couldn't fathom that a tiny bundle of genetic material could ? of 30 percent of the human population. Now we understand viruses well enough to reverse engineer them and use them to do our bidding.
This post is nothing but facts. My point is the argument AGAINST the existence of ? is not logical either because the science of today doesn't fill in enough of the holes or answer all of the questions. If it's not supported by facts, or reason, then it's not logical and that goes for both sides. That's all it boils down to really.
You're right. You can't logically prove that ? doesn't exist without hard facts to the contrary. The most you can do is prove that ? didn't need to exist for things to happen. That's why a lot of people think science replaces ? . They believe just because you have a scientific explanation for something, that means you don't need ? in the equation and therefore ? doesn't exist. That's not a completely logical assertion though. It also shows a somewhat flawed understanding of science in that it suggests that sciences answers more than it actually does. Science can tell you how simple chemicals might have gone on to become bacteria, but that's just describing a mechanism. Science hasn't gotten to the point where it can tell you why such a mechanism exists to begin with. No matter what question you answer with Science, you can always ask "Why?" and sooner or later the only answer science will be able to give you is "Because that's just how it works."
