[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]A misunderstanding again, my world view is Christianity, which involves the belief in a soul.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and why is that your worldview? What evidence do you have that this worldview is correct?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]All of these statements are made in the context of a naturalistic world view though, these things don't disprove the existence of a soul, only that the soul and body mutually affect each other which is exactly the teaching of Christianity. Again, this issue doesn't really affect support for either world view in this context as either can based purely off of the scientific evidence. Instead the important question is which world view is correct. What I was trying to convey before is that people with brain damage such that gives them incredible short memory spans or no vision or the inability to comprehend language are not necessarily eternally doomed to carry on these disorders in a Christian context.[/QUOTE]
I know they don't disprove it, in the sense that it's pretty much impossible to prove something doesn't exist. My point is that there's no reason to assume that they do, since everything we know about the mind can be adequately explained without resorting to supernatural explanations, and doing so is an unnecessarily complicated explanation. It's like saying the fact that we can explain lightening as a natural process doesn't disprove Zeus throwing them. Well, sure, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to believe in Zeus. And the fact that your worldview is an Ancient Greek one doesn't mean it makes any more sense to do so.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]Yes, the idea of the soul piloting the brain only works to a certain extent, as I stated in my last post, it is Christian doctrine that the soul and body are conjoined. I cannot say what the nature of this connection is though. Also it's not a coincidence that the soul's personality matches what is shown in the brain[/QUOTE]
Why would the soul's personality always match what is in the brain, if it doesn't require a brain to function? Why claim there's a soul at all if it's not necessary to the explanation?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]Well, then you would have to explain why the laws of the universe seem fine-tuned for life. Whether it's life on earth or life in general it doesn't matter as both point towards a purposeful creator.[/QUOTE]
I did give a few possible explanations. Again, generally any unthinking process is going to be simpler and make more sense than a purposeful creator, since they don't require you to explain an incredibly complex thing like intelligence always existing without time nor space with which to exist or function in.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]Really the only thing going for a naturalistic explanation is multiverse theory, but then either the probability is extremely low that one of the universes created happened to support life making the whole theory extremely unlikely,[/QUOTE]
Surely the probability is rather less low than an intelligent entity existing with no cause outside of time and space? Certainly a lot more simple an explanation, anyway.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]or there's an infinite amount of infinitely different universes which [B]has no evidence to back it up at all[/B].[/QUOTE]
Just like an intelligent entity existing with no cause outside of time and space, then. It's also a lot more simple than that explanation, since it doesn't require you to make all the assumptions we went over.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]There's also the issue of the origin of life and how a purposeless and unintelligent causal agent would most likely if not definitely not create life in precisely the right universe for it to exist [/QUOTE]
Life could simply be something that inevitably arises in the right conditions, the same as all chemical reactions. I don't think that requires an intelligent entity to explain it at all.
[QUOTE=plunger435;41980179]Also what's with the debate, all you guys are doing is dick waving as no ones opinions will be changed.[/QUOTE]
Because it's fun! :P
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41980220]A misunderstanding again, my world view is Christianity, which involves the belief in a soul.
[/quote]
No matter what "world view" you have, you can't just use that as an argument in a debate. "God fits my world view" isn't in any way proof of God's existence, and it actually seems like you assume you know what God would intend, if he existed. You ascribe purpose to both life and the universe, and neither really has any purpose in of itself - you have a purpose because you give yourself one. Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I guess your view on the purpose of life is different from mine.
[quote]
All of these statements are made in the context of a naturalistic world view though, these things don't disprove the existence of a soul, only that the soul and body mutually affect each other which is exactly the teaching of Christianity. Again, this issue doesn't really affect support for either world view in this context as either can based purely off of the scientific evidence. Instead the important question is which world view is correct. What I was trying to convey before is that people with brain damage such that gives them incredible short memory spans or no vision or the inability to comprehend language are not necessarily eternally doomed to carry on these disorders in a Christian context.
Yes, the idea of the soul piloting the brain only works to a certain extent, as I stated in my last post, it is Christian doctrine that the soul and body are conjoined. I cannot say what the nature of this connection is though. Also it's not a coincidence that the soul's personality matches what is shown in the brain
[/quote]
You can't "disprove" a soul, because there is nothing to actually [I]disprove[/I]. I'm sad to take it out there, but do you know the flying spaghetti monster? You can't disprove that the flying spaghetti monster exists, but that is [I]not[/I] and never will be evidence that it exists. The "soul" is as far as science is concerned simply small electrical impulses that make you capable of logical thought. And stop talking about world views - it sounds like it gives more legitimacy to your claims, but world views don't constitute any kind of evidence. Might as well say "opinion", and that's really what I think you should. You can't argue for or against God, other than saying there's no evidence for or against - simply because you can't have any evidence of something not taking place in a physical world. So you're welcome to be christian, just dont think there's any logic in religion other than the internal logic of the religion.
[quote]
That's kinda the point. We can understand things like the voice so they appear less abstract, and there's no reason to think intelligence is any different. If someone in the past who didn't understand how voices work assigned a supernatural cause to them instead of a physical process, would that be a reasonable position to hold?
[/quote]
That would be a reasonable position to hold, because the person wouldn't have access to the kind of knowledge we have today. It's not unreasonable to be religious, because I really do understand why one would want to see a purpose in everything - it's reasonable to be religious, but definitely not logical. So please do keep logic and religion seperated.
[quote]
Well, then you would have to explain why the laws of the universe seem fine-tuned for life. Whether it's life on earth or life in general it doesn't matter as both point towards a purposeful creator. Really the only thing going for a naturalistic explanation is multiverse theory, but then either the probability is extremely low that one of the universes created happened to support life making the whole theory extremely unlikely, or there's an infinite amount of infinitely different universes which has no evidence to back it up at all. There's also the issue of the origin of life and how a purposeless and unintelligent causal agent would most likely if not definitely not create life in precisely the right universe for it to exist in.
[/quote]
The laws of the universe aren't fine-tuned for life, life is fine-tuned for the laws of the universe. If you subscribe to the theory of evolution, you'd know that it all really comes down to conforming to your surroundings, not the other way around.
And yes, the odds are probably very low, but can you even grasp how big the universe is and how much of it is completely incapable of support life (as we know it)? Only 4.6% of the universe is made up of mass-energy (and that means there's a lot less actual "matter" than that), and most of that will be in the form of stars, quasers, nebulas and whatnot. Only an [I]extremely[/I] small part of it exists in planets, and only an extremely small amount of the planets we've found has been able to sustain life. Actually just one so far, though we have a few candidates.
So really, the laws of the universe appear to be extremely hostile to life (as we know it), not "fine-tuned" in the slightest. With regards to multiverse theories, there are loads. Multiple dimensions are actually a viable candidate to explain some of the inconsistencies we see in the current standard-theory. The standard theory isn't perfect, and it's far from done, but it's looking pretty good.
And you seem to saying there's no evidence of the big bang theory, which is totally wrong. We can't be completely sure - we never can be - but the CMB, the cosmological principle, etc. are all pointing at something looking very much like the big bang. I suggest you read about it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Hubble.27s_law_and_the_expansion_of_space[/url]
[quote]
These tests only confirm that they can recognize a reflection of their body is in fact a reflection of their body, that does not mean they consciously think "I must be that animal".[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you're stupid if you think humans are the only one capable of this kind of cognitive functionality. Newborn babies can't recognize themselves in a mirror, but later in life it appears to be no trouble at all. We see the same kind of behaviour in other animals, and tests with magpies (I think) have shown they are quite capable of solving simple puzzles, even working together, in order to obtain food - without being shown the solution to the puzzle in the first place.
Less pointless religious debate, more funny billboard vandalism.
[img]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-18748-This-year-thousands-of-men-wil-gwhQ.jpeg[/img]
[QUOTE=Riller;41976047]Instead of arguing over this stuff all the time, can we just follow this flowchart and be over with? It answers all the important questions in the religion vs atheism debate, quickly and easily.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/yMsRxj9.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
shouldn't it cycle back around to "are they being a dick"
[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]
oh god page 4 is a lot messier than page 2
[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]
i dont know if i want this
[QUOTE=zakedodead;41976067]YEAH DISCUSSING THINGS ON FORUMS IS BAD[/QUOTE]
"hey guys, reloingn sux :3" is not a discussion
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
[QUOTE=V12US;41981803]Less pointless religious debate, more funny billboard vandalism.
[img]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-18748-This-year-thousands-of-men-wil-gwhQ.jpeg[/img][/QUOTE]
[img]http://funcorner.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/spread-anarchy-dont-tell-me-what-to-do.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41974563]you know, i try not to generalize, but this is true.[/QUOTE]Not really. Facepunch nowadays has a fairly even split of theists and atheists, a light sprinkling of nutters to add some flavour, and 30 minutes in the oven at 120 C.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41981665]No matter what "world view" you have, you can't just use that as an argument in a debate. "God fits my world view" isn't in any way proof of God's existence, and it actually seems like you assume you know what God would intend, if he existed. You ascribe purpose to both life and the universe, and neither really has any purpose in of itself - you have a purpose because you give yourself one. Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I guess your view on the purpose of life is different from mine.
You can't "disprove" a soul, because there is nothing to actually [I]disprove[/I]. I'm sad to take it out there, but do you know the flying spaghetti monster? You can't disprove that the flying spaghetti monster exists, but that is [I]not[/I] and never will be evidence that it exists. The "soul" is as far as science is concerned simply small electrical impulses that make you capable of logical thought. And stop talking about world views - it sounds like it gives more legitimacy to your claims, but world views don't constitute any kind of evidence. Might as well say "opinion", and that's really what I think you should. You can't argue for or against God, other than saying there's no evidence for or against - simply because you can't have any evidence of something not taking place in a physical world. So you're welcome to be christian, just dont think there's any logic in religion other than the internal logic of the religion.[/QUOTE]
I'm not using my world view as proof for souls, I'm using my world view as a reason for why I believe in souls. You asked why I believe in souls, I told you why, because of my world view. Also, frankly those who oppose this belief do it because instead of ascribing to a Christian world view they ascribe to a naturalistic world view. That's why I keep bringing up world views as they are vital when it comes to these sorts of things. I spent the whole beginning of this discussion explaining some of the evidence for the Christian world view(mainly through the cosmological argument and then through the origin of life), this whole issue with the soul was brought up in the middle of it all, but it doesn't really hold much sway on the world views themselves as any position one does have on whether or not a soul exists is really a result of their world view. Besides, everyone who's been telling me that there's no reason to believe souls exist have just been sticking to their naturalistic world view, they don;t actually know if what they're saying is true. The Christian concept of a soul fits perfectly into the given facts about neuroscience, beyond that, there's not so much to say apart from the fact that this is really not relevant to the original discussion at all.
[QUOTE]That would be a reasonable position to hold, because the person wouldn't have access to the kind of knowledge we have today. It's not unreasonable to be religious, because I really do understand why one would want to see a purpose in everything - it's reasonable to be religious, but definitely not logical. So please do keep logic and religion seperated.[/QUOTE]
Ugh, I already talked about where pure logic leads us, essentially all you can logically confirm without believing or having faith in anything is that you are a mind and that you exist. Naturalism is no more logical than religion is.
[QUOTE]The laws of the universe aren't fine-tuned for life, life is fine-tuned for the laws of the universe. If you subscribe to the theory of evolution, you'd know that it all really comes down to conforming to your surroundings, not the other way around.
And yes, the odds are probably very low, but can you even grasp how big the universe is and how much of it is completely incapable of support life (as we know it)? Only 4.6% of the universe is made up of mass-energy (and that means there's a lot less actual "matter" than that), and most of that will be in the form of stars, quasers, nebulas and whatnot. Only an [I]extremely[/I] small part of it exists in planets, and only an extremely small amount of the planets we've found has been able to sustain life. Actually just one so far, though we have a few candidates.[/QUOTE]
Well actually, all of that extra stuff isn't going to waist, all the stars filling up space out there are forges for rare elements that allow life to exist. Without all of that extra space and matter, life as we know it wouldn't be possible. Also, evolutionary theory has no explanation for the origin of life, so you can't really use it as an argument for what the origin of life was.
[QUOTE]So really, the laws of the universe appear to be extremely hostile to life (as we know it), not "fine-tuned" in the slightest. With regards to multiverse theories, there are loads. Multiple dimensions are actually a viable candidate to explain some of the inconsistencies we see in the current standard-theory. The standard theory isn't perfect, and it's far from done, but it's looking pretty good.
And you seem to saying there's no evidence of the big bang theory, which is totally wrong. We can't be completely sure - we never can be - but the CMB, the cosmological principle, etc. are all pointing at something looking very much like the big bang. I suggest you read about it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Hubble.27s_law_and_the_expansion_of_space[/url][/QUOTE]
That is a heavily debatable statement, far from fact.
Anyway,there is proof of the multiverse theory does bring support to the existence of other dimensions, but beyond that it doesn't prove anything anything in support of what you're claiming or against what I am. Also I've been arguing from the cosmological argument this whole time, if I didn't believe the big bang ocured I wouldn't be having this discussion probably.
[QUOTE]Sorry, but you're stupid if you think humans are the only one capable of this kind of cognitive functionality. Newborn babies can't recognize themselves in a mirror, but later in life it appears to be no trouble at all. We see the same kind of behaviour in other animals, and tests with magpies (I think) have shown they are quite capable of solving simple puzzles, even working together, in order to obtain food - without being shown the solution to the puzzle in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Low cognitive functionality is to be expected among newborns because humans birth their babies much earlier than other mammals. So it's not that surprising we have extremely low mental capabilities until we've grown a bit more, that's just the body growing to allow us to do it. In any case, solving puzzles to get food hardly equals an animal in a cognitive sense with humanity, the fact that we are unmatched in our abilities among all the other creatures on this planet puts a very strong case for the idea that we are the only ones capable of this kind of cognitive functionality.
Dude, I can't respond to all that right now. But let me tell you that neither the CMB nor the cosmological principle or whatever is debatable. It's as close to fact as something gets.
Religion is not logical, but even if it was, you could never compare it to scientific theory, simply because for somethign to be a scientific theory it has to be falsifiable. I refer to Mr. Popper here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper[/url]
And you keep saying there's "evidence" of God, but really all your "evidence" is just current shortcomings in the theories we have. How is that evidence in any way? Lack of evidence is not evidence of the contrary. And why can't we just stop trying to make rivalry between religion and science? They're clearly two very different things, and loads of people get along without trying to jusity their religion by applying some pseudo-science.
And clearly orangutangs and whatnot have cognital abilities, that, while they may not match those a grown human being, can be compared to those of a young child. Monkeys, dolphins and some other animals are very much capable of recognizing themselves, and research show this very clearly.
[QUOTE=RobbL;41974552]But pork is red meat[/QUOTE]
At the time there was a health concern over which types of meat were better for you and which types were considered unhealthy. People thought that "white meat" (e.g. chicken and turkey) was far more healthier and considered superior to "red meat" (e.g. beef and pork).
Pork: The Other White Meat was a successful ad campaign to change the public's opinion towards pork.
[QUOTE=Levithan;41974647]it's funny because they ritualistically eat the blood and flesh of their savior, which is also at the same time one of the many forms of their god[/QUOTE]
Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation. Catholicism believed that the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ. Protestantism got rid of that idea and made it how they believe it was meant to be interpreted, that the two are merely symbolic and aren't actually the flesh and blood.
Here's my theory why God doesn't exist:
hasn't bothered to reveal himself in any way
=
doesn't exist
I'm sorry but if the god's trying to test our faith by not responding then I might as well chug nuclear waste and expect to become Spiderman.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41974578]I'll admit it's pretty well done but really guys, that's just childish.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Making fun of beliefs isn't childish as long as you disagree with them.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41982554]I'm not using my world view as proof for souls, I'm using my world view as a reason for why I believe in souls. You asked why I believe in souls, I told you why, because of my world view. Also, frankly those who oppose this belief do it because instead of ascribing to a Christian world view they ascribe to a naturalistic world view. That's why I keep bringing up world views as they are vital when it comes to these sorts of things. I spent the whole beginning of this discussion explaining some of the evidence for the Christian world view(mainly through the cosmological argument and then through the origin of life), this whole issue with the soul was brought up in the middle of it all, but it doesn't really hold much sway on the world views themselves as any position one does have on whether or not a soul exists is really a result of their world view. Besides, everyone who's been telling me that there's no reason to believe souls exist have just been sticking to their naturalistic world view, they don;t actually know if what they're saying is true. The Christian concept of a soul fits perfectly into the given facts about neuroscience, beyond that, there's not so much to say apart from the fact that this is really not relevant to the original discussion at all.[/QUOTE]
It sounds like you're saying the Christian world view is based on having faith and preconceived notions whereas the naturalistic world view is based on using only logic and observation. What is the point of arguing if something that is specific to you is a requirement for you believing what you do in the first place? The whole point of logic is so that you can prove an idea solely with language. The fact that God exists is a specific part of the Christian world view, but logic is universal to anyone that understands it. So if you can't convey your evidence using logic, you shouldn't be arguing at all
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;41986109]It sounds like you're saying the Christian world view is based on having faith and preconceived notions whereas the naturalistic world view is based on using only logic and observation. What is the point of arguing if something that is specific to you is a requirement for you believing what you do in the first place? The whole point of logic is so that you can prove an idea solely with language. The fact that God exists is a specific part of the Christian world view, but logic is universal to anyone that understands it. So if you can't convey your evidence using logic, you shouldn't be arguing at all[/QUOTE]
How is my world view based on faith and preconceived notions alone if I've already stated 3 points of evidence in favor of my world view? It's not like there's any compelling evidence for naturalism, even if there were no evidence for God that wouldn't prove naturalism right. Saying there is no God is just as much if even more of an extraordinary claim that is sorely lacking factual support because everyone thinks that it should be the default for some reason. So, if naturalism is to be conveyed using logic, use any argument, don't just say "there's no evidence for God".
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41982554]I'm not using my world view as proof for souls, I'm using my world view as a reason for why I believe in souls. You asked why I believe in souls, I told you why, because of my world view. Also, frankly those who oppose this belief do it because instead of ascribing to a Christian world view they ascribe to a naturalistic world view. That's why I keep bringing up world views as they are vital when it comes to these sorts of things. I spent the whole beginning of this discussion explaining some of the evidence for the Christian world view(mainly through the cosmological argument and then through the origin of life), this whole issue with the soul was brought up in the middle of it all, but it doesn't really hold much sway on the world views themselves as any position one does have on whether or not a soul exists is really a result of their world view. Besides, everyone who's been telling me that there's no reason to believe souls exist have just been sticking to their naturalistic world view, they don;t actually know if what they're saying is true. The Christian concept of a soul fits perfectly into the given facts about neuroscience, beyond that, there's not so much to say apart from the fact that this is really not relevant to the original discussion at all.[/QUOTE]
No. You have wholesale ignored our arguments against things you say. It's not our fault you just ignore what we say when we talk about things. Stop talking about world views like this. Seriously. It's not important. Your views are always going to be influenced by your "world views". Being able to try and step out of your comfort zone in this area is important. We have. You haven't.
[QUOTE]Ugh, I already talked about where pure logic leads us, essentially all you can logically confirm without believing or having faith in anything is that you are a mind and that you exist. Naturalism is no more logical than religion is.[/QUOTE]
How is it not? You say this, but you don't [b]quantify[/b] it. You just say it. You need to make a statement like that true with more than just an off the cuff remark. It is more "logical" because it doesn't assume steps to the universe that it doesn't seem to need.
[QUOTE]Well actually, all of that extra stuff isn't going to waist, all the stars filling up space out there are forges for rare elements that allow life to exist. Without all of that extra space and matter, life as we know it wouldn't be possible. Also, evolutionary theory has no explanation for the origin of life, so you can't really use it as an argument for what the origin of life was.[/QUOTE]
Evolution doesn't TRY to explain abiogenisis. It doesn't want to. It's not the point of evolution. The explanation of life is never going to in evolution. It is in chemical theory. It is in this chemical theory that we have very strong ideas as to EXACTLY how life popped up.
We can't explain the beginning of the universe, but here's the rub, you can't either as your explanation raises more questions than answers.
[QUOTE]That is a heavily debatable statement, far from fact.[/QUOTE]
No, actually it isn't. This isn't debatable at all. The CMB is a 'fact' of the universe as far as modern science is concerned. Just like it isn't debatable that the laws of the universe differed from time to time, it's not debatable that the CMB is a fact. Don't bring up how it was always the same because that's false. It wasn't. There's a reason we can't analyze the big bang right down to the start of it, and that is because the math breaks down due to the lack of standardized physical laws.
[QUOTE]Anyway,there is proof of the multiverse theory does bring support to the existence of other dimensions, but beyond that it doesn't prove anything anything in support of what you're claiming or against what I am. Also I've been arguing from the cosmological argument this whole time, if I didn't believe the big bang ocured I wouldn't be having this discussion probably.[/QUOTE]
The multiverse literally, and i mean that in the most literal sense possible, has nothing to do with "dimensions". It has to do with universes. Multiples of them existing side by side in alternate reality bubbles. Dimensions are a specific and different area of study.
[QUOTE]Low cognitive functionality is to be expected among newborns because humans birth their babies much earlier than other mammals. So it's not that surprising we have extremely low mental capabilities until we've grown a bit more, that's just the body growing to allow us to do it. In any case, solving puzzles to get food hardly equals an animal in a cognitive sense with humanity, the fact that we are unmatched in our abilities among all the other creatures on this planet puts a very strong case for the idea that we are the only ones capable of this kind of cognitive functionality.[/QUOTE]
Holy crap. No. We birth slow compared to a lot of creatures, and we grow slow, compared to a lot of creatures. This is a straight up fallacy what you've said here.
The human brain doesn't have the ability for high level thought at an early age for several reasons. It hasn't ever had a caloric overload enough for high level thought to be achieved, and two, the brain is not put together yet. It hasn't had it's neurons and synapses get into place. So, no.
No it doesn't. We have proof dolphins can talk and communicate with each other. We have proof that Meerkats/prarie dogs have complex languages.
Can you stop glazing over our arguments, stop misreading and not replying to points that have put a serious thorn in your side
[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41986216]How is my world view based on faith and preconceived notions alone if I've already stated 3 points of evidence in favor of my world view? It's not like there's any compelling evidence for naturalism, even if there were no evidence for God that wouldn't prove naturalism right. Saying there is no God is just as much if even more of an extraordinary claim that is sorely lacking factual support because everyone thinks that it should be the default for some reason. So, if naturalism is to be conveyed using logic, use any argument, don't just say "there's no evidence for God".[/QUOTE]
it is not evidence when you just look at something and say "yeah, that totally supports my theory" but you never say why, explain why, or how, or even what that means.
no, you've just replied like you're views are the default and normal way to view the universe, with somehow, less questions raised for you.
You can sweep a super intelligent and all time powerful being under the rug, but the rest of us here need that explained and substantiated, or else it is just a faith based claim.
You keep saying it's not natural for god to not exist, but you have to understand, you're not arguing something when you just tell us how your view allows things to be.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41986221]No. You have wholesale ignored our arguments against things you say. It's not our fault you just ignore what we say when we talk about things. Stop talking about world views like this. Seriously. It's not important. Your views are always going to be influenced by your "world views". Being able to try and step out of your comfort zone in this area is important. We have. You haven't.[/QUOTE]
Are you actually saying naturalism isn't a world view? I could say exactly this to you and be just as correct, if you honestly think you're free of any bias than I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.
[QUOTE]How is it not? You say this, but you don't [b]quantify[/b] it. You just say it. You need to make a statement like that true with more than just an off the cuff remark. It is more "logical" because it doesn't assume steps to the universe that it doesn't seem to need. [/QUOTE]
You've seriously never heard of that philosophical concept, or just tried the thought experiment on your own? Well just look up the philosophical concept of evidentialism to see the issues with it(evidentialism meaning you base your personal justifications solely on evidence) you'll soon find that you just cannot live functionally or be sure about anything under a full evidentialist philosophy. Also naturalism doesn't even have a proposition for the origin of the universe, so to say it's more logical doesn't make sense because there's been absolutely no viable naturalistic claims for how everything started from absolute void.
[QUOTE]Evolution doesn't TRY to explain abiogenisis. It doesn't want to. It's not the point of evolution. The explanation of life is never going to in evolution. It is in chemical theory. It is in this chemical theory that we have very strong ideas as to EXACTLY how life popped up.[/QUOTE]
I know this and the person I responded to should have known this, that's why I brought it up. Also we have no clue exactly how life popped up, not a single one.
[QUOTE]We can't explain the beginning of the universe, but here's the rub, you can't either as your explanation raises more questions than answers. [/QUOTE]
Whether an explanation raises more questions or not has no bearing on whether it's right or not. It's how consistent, or inconsistent, the evidence is for it.
[QUOTE]No, actually it isn't. This isn't debatable at all. The CMB is a 'fact' of the universe as far as modern science is concerned. Just like it isn't debatable that the laws of the universe differed from time to time, it's not debatable that the CMB is a fact. Don't bring up how it was always the same because that's false. It wasn't. There's a reason we can't analyze the big bang right down to the start of it, and that is because the math breaks down due to the lack of standardized physical laws.[/QUOTE]
That statement was pointed solely towards his claim that the physical laws are hostile to the universe, I didn't mean in the slightest to say that the CMB is far from fact. Also the physical laws not being the same at the point expansion begin would be
fully expected, not only becaus eht euniverse was in the act of just being created, but also because it started in a singularity.
[QUOTE]Holy crap. No. We birth slow compared to a lot of creatures, and we grow slow, compared to a lot of creatures. This is a straight up fallacy what you've said here.
The human brain doesn't have the ability for high level thought at an early age for several reasons. It hasn't ever had a caloric overload enough for high level thought to be achieved, and two, the brain is not put together yet. It hasn't had it's neurons and synapses get into place. So, no.
No it doesn't. We have proof dolphins can talk and communicate with each other. We have proof that Meerkats/prarie dogs have complex languages. [/QUOTE]
The theory that humans are born less developed in comparison to other animals is an established anthropological theory, I have no clue where you're getting the idea that it's a fallacy, or how you're so sure that it is.
[QUOTE]Can you stop glazing over our arguments, stop misreading and not replying to points that have put a serious thorn in your side[/QUOTE]
I'm one person, I'm not going to discuss with several different people at the same time, I choose the person who seems to actually respond to my arguments when I decide who I should reply to.
[QUOTE]it is not evidence when you just look at something and say "yeah, that totally supports my theory" but you never say why, explain why, or how, or even what that means.[/QUOTE]
I've already stated how my evidence supports my views, look back in my posts if you really want to, I've restated them several times already.
[QUOTE]no, you've just replied like you're views are the default and normal way to view the universe, with somehow, less questions raised for you.
You can sweep a super intelligent and all time powerful being under the rug, but the rest of us here need that explained and substantiated, or else it is just a faith based claim.
You keep saying it's not natural for god to not exist, but you have to understand, you're not arguing something when you just tell us how your view allows things to be.[/QUOTE]
Well, no I haven't at all, Really it's only you guys who've said your views are default and normal. In fact you've also just been telling me how your view allows things to be because you assume it the default argument in this discussion. I've offered 3 points of evidence from the cosmological argument, to the origin of life, to how the physical laws of the universe allow life to exist. You've done nothing but say how things work in a naturalistic sense and claim that as proof of naturalism.
[QUOTE=V12US;41981906]"If you could reason with antitheists, there would be no antitheists."[/QUOTE]
FTFY
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41986709]Are you actually saying naturalism isn't a world view? I could say exactly this to you and be just as correct, if you honestly think you're free of any bias than I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say that. Would you STOP putting fucking words in my mouth.
[QUOTE]You've seriously never heard of that philosophical concept, or just tried the thought experiment on your own? Well just look up the philosophical concept of evidentialism to see the issues with it(evidentialism meaning you base your personal justifications solely on evidence) you'll soon find that you just cannot live functionally or be sure about anything under a full evidentialist philosophy. Also naturalism doesn't even have a proposition for the origin of the universe, so to say it's more logical doesn't make sense because there's been absolutely no viable naturalistic claims for how everything started from absolute void.[/QUOTE]
No. I have. I have done that. It doesn't end up how you're acting like it does. Please stop saying naturalism lacks this, lacks that, whilst supporting a world view that has no more reason to be true than what I believe. You have given me "evidence". It is not. It is claims you've made. Yes, mine are claims too, but scientifically supported as of now. Yes, let's go down the road of "we can't believe anything". Actually, let's not because it doesn't add anything to the debate. No one is using nothing but evidence here to draw conclusions. Naturalism does. Stop this bullshit.
You have made no understandable or explainable claim as to this either. None. Not one
[QUOTE]I know this and the person I responded to should have known this, that's why I brought it up. Also we have no clue exactly how life popped up, not a single one.
[/QUOTE]
Really? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment[/url]
stop flaunting your fucking ignorance.
[QUOTE]Whether an explanation raises more questions or not has no bearing on whether it's right or not. It's how consistent, or inconsistent, the evidence is for it.[/QUOTE]
Then is this a consistent idea with the universe we see today? Not really. If your explanation for how things happens doesn't explain how it happened but makes me ask more questions about your explanation than the answer it gives, then, yes, it is a BAD idea.
[QUOTE]That statement was pointed solely towards his claim that the physical laws are hostile to the universe, I didn't mean in the slightest to say that the CMB is far from fact. Also the physical laws not being the same at the point expansion begin would be
fully expected, not only becaus eht euniverse was in the act of just being created, but also because it started in a singularity.[/QUOTE]
So you'll acknowledge that the laws changed when it's comfortable for you to do so, when earlier you straight up denied that this happened?
[QUOTE]The theory that humans are born less developed in comparison to other animals is an established anthropological theory, I have no clue where you're getting the idea that it's a fallacy, or how you're so sure that it is.[/QUOTE]
Wait, you're not reading what I'm saying and that's becoming increasingly clear. You're just flat out not reading what I'm writing
[QUOTE]I'm one person, I'm not going to discuss with several different people at the same time, I choose the person who seems to actually respond to my arguments when I decide who I should reply to.[/QUOTE]
No, you'll just cherry pick the replies you can best manage to deal with. Look bud, i've replied to you a lot, taking on a lot of your arguments and points straight up, but you'll still jump around points i've made and then continue arguing the same point over again like you haven't had any counters to it.
[QUOTE]I've already stated how my evidence supports my views, look back in my posts if you really want to, I've restated them several times already.
[/QUOTE]
See, this is the problem. That isn't evidence. No one, not one scientist on earth considers that evidence. You're wrong.
[QUOTE]Well, no I haven't at all, Really it's only you guys who've said your views are default and normal. In fact you've also just been telling me how your view allows things to be because you assume it the default argument in this discussion. I've offered 3 points of evidence from the cosmological argument, to the origin of life, to how the physical laws of the universe allow life to exist. You've done nothing but say how things work in a naturalistic sense and claim that as proof of naturalism.[/QUOTE]
But those are explanations that are lacking, weak, and not really counted as evidence. We take our point of view to be natural or normal, because of the greater simplicity of that idea, and that the universe has often made it quite clear, the simplest answer is the best answer.
"God did it" "God is timeless, therefore it's worthless to look for him, or to explain him" and "the cosmological argument" aren't really pieces of evidence you can use to discount ages of scientific study on the subjects.
[QUOTE=slayer64;41987233]FTFY[/QUOTE]
that's not even clever or relevant to your cause
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41986221]
Holy crap. No. We birth slow compared to a lot of creatures, and we grow slow, compared to a lot of creatures. This is a straight up fallacy what you've said here.
The human brain doesn't have the ability for high level thought at an early age for several reasons. It hasn't ever had a caloric overload enough for high level thought to be achieved, and two, the brain is not put together yet. It hasn't had it's neurons and synapses get into place. So, no.
No it doesn't. We have proof dolphins can talk and communicate with each other. We have proof that Meerkats/prarie dogs have complex languages.
Can you stop glazing over our arguments, stop misreading and not replying to points that have put a serious thorn in your side
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that part is kind true though; human pregnancies a lot shorter than many other animals, which is also the reason why human newborn are so helpless the first few years, because they haven't had the time to properly develop, while most other newborn animals are almost fully capable of functioning soon after been born.
As for the whole idea of God, I think it is mostly based on assumptions and guesswork rather than suggestive evidence.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41988130]I didn't say that. Would you STOP putting fucking words in my mouth.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Your views are always going to be influenced by your "world views". Being able to try and step out of your comfort zone in this area is important. We have. You haven't.[/QUOTE]
I assume you meant that naturalism is at least above other world views somehow in this statement, as if being a naturalist means you take risks or something. discussing this is pointless however and personal attacks about how "I haven't stepped out of my comfort zone" are petty and useless.
[QUOTE]No. I have. I have done that. It doesn't end up how you're acting like it does. Please stop saying naturalism lacks this, lacks that, whilst supporting a world view that has no more reason to be true than what I believe. You have given me "evidence". It is not. It is claims you've made. Yes, mine are claims too, but scientifically supported as of now. Yes, let's go down the road of "we can't believe anything". Actually, let's not because it doesn't add anything to the debate. No one is using nothing but evidence here to draw conclusions. Naturalism does. Stop this bullshit.
You have made no understandable or explainable claim as to this either. None. Not one[/QUOTE]
My claim is theism in this context, my evidence is what I've provided to support said claim. I don't see what the issue is with this. I'm also not suggesting we go down the road of evidentialism, that's what you're suggesting, I'm just pointing out how useless it actually and that it is far from the same as naturalism.
[QUOTE]Really? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment[/url]
stop flaunting your fucking ignorance.[/QUOTE]
the fact that you consider the Urey-Miller experiment relevant to origins of life shows your ignorance. There's good reason to believe the atmospheric conditions simulated in the experiment were inaccurate. Also you have to keep in mind that they had to actively intervene to make sure the very burst of electricity that made the amino acids did not instantly destroy them. I suggest you expand your reading.
[url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745.full.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE]Then is this a consistent idea with the universe we see today? Not really. If your explanation for how things happens doesn't explain how it happened but makes me ask more questions about your explanation than the answer it gives, then, yes, it is a BAD idea.[/QUOTE]
The same can be said for any explanation for anything really. Again, how many questions you end up with at the conclusion has no bearing on how accurate the answer is
[QUOTE]So you'll acknowledge that the laws changed when it's comfortable for you to do so, when earlier you straight up denied that this happened?[/QUOTE]
I never said the laws were always there, I said throughout the existence of the universe they have remained constant. The point of the universe's creation would obviously not have constant physical laws because they were forming, in a singularity of all things. In any case this has little baring on the discussion now that I know exactly what you meant by saying the physical laws have changed.
[QUOTE]Wait, you're not reading what I'm saying and that's becoming increasingly clear. You're just flat out not reading what I'm writing[/QUOTE]
You obviouslt haven;t been reading my responses to you properly if you perceive them that way.
[QUOTE]No, you'll just cherry pick the replies you can best manage to deal with. Look bud, i've replied to you a lot, taking on a lot of your arguments and points straight up, but you'll still jump around points i've made and then continue arguing the same point over again like you haven't had any counters to it.[/QUOTE]
Oh come on, please show an inkling of being reasonable here. Do you seriously expect me to respond to every single person that's referred to me in this thread, there's been at least 4 different users including you who have replied to my posts. I've tried to be accommodating, but now you're just being ridiculous.
[QUOTE]See, this is the problem. That isn't evidence. No one, not one scientist on earth considers that evidence. You're wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well that's not true, the points that I've given are seen as evidence by a multitude of people, both highly academic and not.
[QUOTE]But those are explanations that are lacking, weak, and not really counted as evidence. We take our point of view to be natural or normal, because of the greater simplicity of that idea, and that the universe has often made it quite clear, the simplest answer is the best answer.[/QUOTE]
As I have stated so many times, naturalism has no answer for the origins of the universe, so bringing up Occam's Razor is useless in this discussion.
[QUOTE]"God did it" "God is timeless, therefore it's worthless to look for him, or to explain him" and "the cosmological argument" aren't really pieces of evidence you can use to discount ages of scientific study on the subjects.[/QUOTE]
You've accused me of putting words in your mouth as you do the very same thing to me. I never said it's worthless trying to look for him or explain him, in fact I'd encourage it. As for the cosmological argument, life's mysterious origins and the fine tuning of physical law, those points of evidence don't discount scientific research. Rather, they use Scientific research, the only thing they discount is the world view of naturalism, which is not the same thing as science.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41988818]I assume you meant that naturalism is at least above other world views somehow in this statement, as if being a naturalist means you take risks or something. discussing this is pointless however and personal attacks about how "I haven't stepped out of my comfort zone" are petty and useless.[/QUOTE]
Views that seek to understand how the universe works first and foremost without trying to imply any previous agenda, like mine, are probably some of the better views to be had because they don't go into equations with pre determined desires.
[QUOTE]My claim is theism in this context, my evidence is what I've provided to support said claim. I don't see what the issue is with this. I'm also not suggesting we go down the road of evidentialism, that's what you're suggesting, I'm just pointing out how useless it actually and that it is far from the same as naturalism.[/QUOTE]
Claiming theism is true with the evidence you're using is inadequate. Scientists feel it is so in many, many fields.
[QUOTE]the fact that you consider the Urey-Miller experiment relevant to origins of life shows your ignorance. There's good reason to believe the atmospheric conditions simulated in the experiment were inaccurate. Also you have to keep in mind that they had to actively intervene to make sure the very burst of electricity that made the amino acids did not instantly destroy them. I suggest you expand your reading.
[url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745.full.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
It's relevant. It is one of many, many explanations we have that are all attempts to explain it based on what knowledge and evidence we have. Claiming evidence can't be used as you have so far makes very little sense to me.
[QUOTE]The same can be said for any explanation for anything really. Again, how many questions you end up with at the conclusion has no bearing on how accurate the answer is[/QUOTE]
Well we're never going to agree that an idea that is simpler is most likely the answer so I guess it's not worth having that argument. You're fine with highly complex solutions being the solution and means to themselves and other things. To me, I can't understand this logic and see it as highly flawed, and creates many steps that are unneeded and conflicting.
[QUOTE]I never said the laws were always there, I said throughout the existence of the universe they have remained constant. The point of the universe's creation would obviously not have constant physical laws because they were forming, in a singularity of all things. In any case this has little baring on the discussion now that I know exactly what you meant by saying the physical laws have changed.[/QUOTE]
But they clearly weren't constant if different states could only exist during certain periods of physical laws?
[QUOTE]You obviouslt haven;t been reading my responses to you properly if you perceive them that way.[/QUOTE]
I have. You glazed over my whole soul argument, and completely discounted it in a half sentence, you ignored everyone's arguments and proof that animals have more cognitive function than you have allowed for in your "world view"
[QUOTE]Well that's not true, the points that I've given are seen as evidence by a multitude of people, both highly academic and not.[/QUOTE]
So the evidence that's on my side supported by a large amount of scientists, and non academics is less valid and takes less logic? hmm
[QUOTE]As I have stated so many times, naturalism has no answer for the origins of the universe, so bringing up Occam's Razor is useless in this discussion.[/QUOTE]
That's not true though. You've said that repeatedly, but as I've said, again, repeatedly, that doesn't make that true. It does. It expects to have more, and understand more.
[QUOTE]You've accused me of putting words in your mouth as you do the very same thing to me. I never said it's worthless trying to look for him or explain him, in fact I'd encourage it. As for the cosmological argument, life's mysterious origins and the fine tuning of physical law, those points of evidence don't discount scientific research. Rather, they use Scientific research, the only thing they discount is the world view of naturalism, which is not the same thing as science.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41978171]I'm not proposing that the universe came from God, rather that it came from nothing. God simply was the one who made it so and being an infinite being, it's pointless to search for where his intelligence arose from or where it comes from being an infinite being by nature does not have these things. In any case, I'm talking about the universe and am claiming that the universe came from absolutely nothing, no matter, energy, space, time or physical laws. The existence of God makes that possible and makes it the most basic premise.[/QUOTE]
See, I'm not putting any words in your mouth when I say what I said there. You've LITERALLY said these things in this thread. I may have paraphrased badly but it's all there.
But they take the science, with a pre intended purpose, and say it applies to something, that it is true, and undeniable. It is the exact same thing christians argue with "god of the gaps" as previously mentioned in this thread.
You see a fine tuning of the universe to life, other people see the fine tuning of life to the universe. That's a major divide we'll never bridge.
I don't get why people get so massively butthurt over religion. It's really nothing to fight over. Just live and let live. It's when people start infringing on other that it becomes a bad thing, and while I don't respect those who advocate and preach, I'm not gonna hate anyone for it. You don't need to berate others who don't practice your religion, but you also don't need to target people of a specific religion either.
I did get a good lol out of the prank though. Tip of the hat to whoever did it, it's pretty damn clever.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41989323]Views that seek to understand how the universe works first and foremost without trying to imply any previous agenda, like mine, are probably some of the better views to be had because they don't go into equations with pre determined desires.[/QUOTE]
but that's not what naturalism is, it's just a flat out belief that there is only the physical world around us. People who go into research with a naturalistic view point have just as much a preconception as a religious person.
[QUOTE]Claiming theism is true with the evidence you're using is inadequate. Scientists feel it is so in many, many fields.[/QUOTE]
well technically I'm arguing for a deistic point of view, so you're right in that sense. Using solely scientific evidence and not historical or philosophical, one can only argue for a deistic world view.
[QUOTE]It's relevant. It is one of many, many explanations we have that are all attempts to explain it based on what knowledge and evidence we have. Claiming evidence can't be used as you have so far makes very little sense to me.[/QUOTE]
A majority of Origin of life researches only see it as historically relevant in this day and age, not scientifically relevant. Regardless of that though, the experiment still required an intelligent purposeful overseer to ensure the amino acids survived the very event that conceived them. the evidence I claim is all backed by modern scientific discovery, the Miller-Urey experiment is not.
[QUOTE]But they clearly weren't constant if different states could only exist during certain periods of physical laws?[/QUOTE]
They were clearly not constant at the time they were created, yes, I took that for granted and was referring to the vast majority of the universe's existence.
[QUOTE]I have. You glazed over my whole soul argument, and completely discounted it in a half sentence, you ignored everyone's arguments and proof that animals have more cognitive function than you have allowed for in your "world view"[/QUOTE]
The fact that animals can do puzzles, display empathy or use language doesn't nearly put them on the same level of humanity. One of the most vital aspects of the mind that is characteristic to humanity is the theory of self and there are no [i]conclusive[/i] results that point to animals having a semblance of that. Regardless, there are clear differences in the behavior of animals as compared to humans, we're far from being on the same level.
[QUOTE]So the evidence that's on my side supported by a large amount of scientists, and non academics is less valid and takes less logic? hmm[/QUOTE]
I never said your point of view wasn't, but that doesn't really matter. You stated my point of view was not supported and that is simply not correct, that's all there is to it.
[QUOTE]That's not true though. You've said that repeatedly, but as I've said, again, repeatedly, that doesn't make that true. It does. It expects to have more, and understand more. [/QUOTE]
You're affirming exactly what I said with this statement, I've said that naturalism can only put another layer of explanation between now and the origin of everything, never actually reaching the origin. You just said that naturalism expects more, so essentially that means it's never truly reaching the origin.
[QUOTE]See, I'm not putting any words in your mouth when I say what I said there. You've LITERALLY said these things in this thread. I may have paraphrased badly but it's all there.[/QUOTE]
I did not literally say it is worthless to search for God or to explain him, I said it's pointless to search for the beginning of an infinite thing as the beginning of an infinite thing is a logical contradiction.
[QUOTE]But they take the science, with a pre intended purpose, and say it applies to something, that it is true, and undeniable. It is the exact same thing christians argue with "god of the gaps" as previously mentioned in this thread. [/QUOTE]
Firstly, nothing in science is undeniable, it relies on that factor to ensure the most accurate answers.
Secondly, the god of the gaps argument shows just how faith based naturalism is, you're essentially putting your faith in science to explain the origins of the universe instead of a deity or whatever else, even though it's pretty much impossible for science to effectively reach the true origins of the universe. Science relies on empirical data and interpretation of that data, without data there is not interpretation, only speculation. If science tries to discover the origin of the very laws they discover things by, it's not going to get too far. Really the question of origins is more a philosophical one than a scientific one.
You have so many wrong ideas about science and "naturalism" as you keep
[QUOTE]You're affirming exactly what I said with this statement, I've said that naturalism can only put another layer of explanation between now and the origin of everything, never actually reaching the origin. You just said that naturalism expects more, so essentially that means it's never truly reaching the origin.[/QUOTE]
you keep saying naturalism. I just believe in a world view that doesn't require a god because it doesn't make sense, that knows full well there is no full understanding of the universe but understands how worthless it is to doubt all science evidence to the point you have claimed.
I'm really quite frustrated with this "naturalism" bullshit you keep using. I believe in a world without a god because by all accounts, a being that has intelligence beyond physical being and all time that has existed since before time, without time, in a state of timelessness, as well as in a state inside a universe with only the evidence of life and the universe itself being the evidence for that is just simply, and never will be enough.
A being like that requires a great deal of explanation. I have not seen that explanation yet.
I'm really not arguing further. I've gone over every subject of this argument three or four times now. You keep acting like my views are wildly logically contradictory because I agree I can't explain the universes beginning for sure. I see the sureness of an answer as a honestly, childlike view of the universe. I have serious doubts about how things function and how things came to be. I have no ability to be sure of something like a god, or a timeless being. I have no reason to feel that that is necessary to make the universe work. I'm not sure of course, but the chances of it seem less than the chances of life just popping out of nothing to me. I don't know how better to state that sureness of a creator is more illogical than the best explanations we can come up with at the time using the best tools, and best philosophical and scientific understandings of.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41989911]you keep saying naturalism. I just believe in a world view that doesn't require a god because it doesn't make sense, that knows full well there is no full understanding of the universe but understands how worthless it is to doubt all science evidence to the point you have claimed.
I'm really quite frustrated with this "naturalism" bullshit you keep using. I believe in a world without a god because by all accounts, a being that has intelligence beyond physical being and all time that has existed since before time, without time, in a state of timelessness, as well as in a state inside a universe with only the evidence of life and the universe itself being the evidence for that is just simply, and never will be enough.
A being like that requires a great deal of explanation. I have not seen that explanation yet.
I'm really not arguing further. I've gone over every subject of this argument three or four times now. You keep acting like my views are wildly logically contradictory because I agree I can't explain the universes beginning for sure. I see the sureness of an answer as a honestly, childlike view of the universe. I have serious doubts about how things function and how things came to be. I have no ability to be sure of something like a god, or a timeless being. I have no reason to feel that that is necessary to make the universe work. I'm not sure of course, but the chances of it seem less than the chances of life just popping out of nothing to me. I don't know how better to state that sureness of a creator is more illogical than the best explanations we can come up with at the time using the best tools, and best philosophical and scientific understandings of.[/QUOTE]
Well, would have been good to know that earlier, would have changed the conversation quite a lot. I was going off of your tending towards evidentialism and your arguments that are characteristic to the arguments of most naturalists I've heard/spoken to. At the very least we have had an opportunity to state our views to each other in a bit more detail. I'm sorry if I frustrated you, frustration is not my intention with these sorts of discussions, only dialogue.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41988818]
the fact that you consider the Urey-Miller experiment relevant to origins of life shows your ignorance. There's good reason to believe the atmospheric conditions simulated in the experiment were inaccurate. Also you have to keep in mind that they had to actively intervene to make sure the very burst of electricity that made the amino acids did not instantly destroy them. I suggest you expand your reading.
[url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745.full.pdf[/url]
[/QUOTE]
That article doesn't even come close to what you think it says.
You're largely misrepresenting current scientific knowledge in the fields of chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and geology to start.
If you really want to get into some of the chemical theory behind several of the models of for abiogenesis, this is a pretty comprehensive paper from 2006:
[URL="http://www.oup.com/us/pdf/Rigoutsos/I-SampleChap.pdf"]http://www.oup.com/us/pdf/Rigoutsos/I-SampleChap.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41990787]Well, would have been good to know that earlier, would have changed the conversation quite a lot. I was going off of your tending towards evidentialism and your arguments that are characteristic to the arguments of most naturalists I've heard/spoken to. At the very least we have had an opportunity to state our views to each other in a bit more detail. I'm sorry if I frustrated you, frustration is not my intention with these sorts of discussions, only dialogue.[/QUOTE]
but the thing is you're misrepresenting what naturalism is anyways even if I'm not one to make your argument seem stronger. it's not correct. you've misconstrued plenty of information for your own purpose. this is what I mean by building your claims into evidence, rather than building evidence into claims. One requires you to know what you want, the result you want, and then you put the evidence together, and you've got it. The other way around is not the same at all no matter how many times you say it is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.