Reply With Quote
I am Agnostic. Sounds like deep down you are as well, tbh.
Why are you assuming infinity and eternity at all?
You've said nothing yet that gives any credence to your claim that the burden is on the atheist to disprove creation.
I am Agnostic. Sounds like deep down you are as well, tbh.
Either something has a beginning or it doesn't. So either the universe is cyclical and we just don't know it, or it began somehow. We've gone over why it's the null to assume something caused the origin for reasons we've already discussed (assuming not goes against parsimony). Then you find yourself in an infinite regression unless you assume some type of infinity.
So yes, antheists do have to demonstrate that everything can come from nothing with no cause if they want the world to believe it. Doesn't make them wrong, but it is at least like people believing in geocentricism. Sure, it's obviously wrong now, but it certainly made sense to assume it at the time until enough evidence came to light.
I probably agree with that to a point, short of solipsism.
We have to assume it goes on forever, else we are applying a double standard. I've heard Hawking say that the laws of physics break down in a singularity, however true that might be, how can we know this? Only by deductive reasoning can we even make the assertion. I know laws of physics seem to break down at the quantum level, however in my opinion it's more likely that our ability to observe fails.I was speaking generally that atheistic and theistic views can coexist if the universe is closed. Even if you think those holding a belief in god have an irrational stance, that doesn't prevent them from being rational scientists if they still believe in the CCP. Essentially no one really assumes the causal road goes on forever, so taking side bets for what's at the end of it shouldn't prevent trying to get there.
I never felt that at any point during, before, right at... the singularity... like forces attracted and unlike forces repelled. I can understand that perhaps gravity works differently in that situation, perhaps that force concentration bends everything into basically nothing so not only do laws not exist, existence itself is questionable.
There are simply too many things that must work in perfect concert to pull this off. And it all just happened by chance, anyone who believes that is a total/complete idiot.
what's "this"? humans only? or the entire universe?
To pull what off?
And work in perfect concert, who claims perfection in any sort of phenomena?
Avante's comment is on par with the mindset of people who've never given it much thought and who believe the product is an intended outcome instead of just a product from a set of precursors. And of course humans were the intended product of the entire set of universal precursors.
internet debate!
Shut your mouth... now, feel better?
What atheists claim abiogenesis?
Does that mean something different to you? I think most folks who don't believe in direct divine intervention believe in abiogensis to some extent. I understand that to mean that life developed from non-living matter. Is that particularly controversial?
Not everything progressed perfectly though, otherwise your family tree would and should have died as a seed imho. Idiots who believe in the existence of God and his absolute controlling power over everything must also believe that the Apollo missions were faked in a studio. humans have been observing the universe for several centuries but still haven't found any sign of a paradise or something where "God" is supposed to live. Where is God, if he really exists? Somewhere outside of the Galaxy, or somewhere else beyond our eyesight?
"God" is more like spiritual symbol than a physical being imho, and he only exists in our minds. He makes us behave good and gives us for ude to help us get through hardships, and everyone has his/her own unique version of God in their minds (Goddess is the "God" for me)
We're extremely lucky to have a planet like earth where everything comes so suitable and makes it possible for life to exist. Things had to work "perfectly" because if anything went wrong in the process, we wouldn't even have the chance to make this discussion here. And we're also unlucky in someway because each of us is given only a limited time to live on the earth, and that the natural selection has failed to purge the ty genes (like yourself, Avante) from the human gene pool
Everything didn't come from nothing...a singularity is not "nothing."
Where are these folks you are referring to?
Not saying I don't believe you. I'd just like to see these folks.
I don't have any real evidence of people supporting it. I just think it's logical. Either life started simultaneously with the universe, or it came later. Assuming the latter, it would have had to come from non-living materials which became living under the right conditions or come from non-physical means.
So the way I see it, there are three genera of beliefs on the matter. First that life is some independent quality that came into being with the Big Bang, similar to how David Chalmers argues consciousness did. Second, life is an independent quality that came later due to some supernatural intervention, essentially a "let there be life" genus. Finally, that life is not an independent quality but just a special state matter can enter under certain cir stances, which is how I understand abiogenesis to be.
Last edited by Chinook; 02-08-2014 at 08:53 PM.
ok Brazil my word from this post forward I consider the past what it was...... something I was never really sure what I did but I piss off so many people I stop thinking about it. Maybe one day you will enlighten me.
Bottom line we don't need personal issues to interfere with the topic at hand (sorry DMC) and why chest others who are just readers not know the facts as we see them?
If the others who post in these topics knew that, "Evolution" debates would be something that moves forward like technology debates as each year they have a winner.
as more and more information is found they present it and the debate has a life. But the insults and religious tones of Evolution keeps it like a Feud kinda like the Hatfield's and McCoy's
or the PLO and the Catholics,the Hindu VS the Jews ,the Bloods vs the Crips... and so on
Never confuse being smart to having more evidence. I never claimed to be "smarter' than anyone show me the quote.your altess is kind enough to answer the question. Apparently you are smarter than MIT dudes
If that was the case OJ would have never lost his murder trial. The LA courts had the "Evidence" but OJ's lawyer was "smarter" you see the difference?
But yes if I debate MIT and they lose then maybe I can see where others may make that claim.
You don't have a penis?and I'm no MIT dude
come on Brazil you know I like to do one liners. you seen my posts... please don't make it a big deal.
"My mind" and "your mind" are the same since we both are humans on this planet we share the same brains so don't use that in your future debates it looks cheesy and people from other countries always seem to sell themselves short being from Brazil you know things I don't so I would never think I'm better than anyone else.so I'm not sure a simple mind like me can understand a grand mind like you but it is worth the try.
Some minds know something some other mind doesn't know so they feel they are "smarter" not true they just happen to know something before you did.
How can a "Scientist" be "Smart" if he only knows what the "Science" teacher knew before him? What I am saying Bill Gates today would just be another Hacker / Computer programer if he just now graduated college. But since he knew "Before" the collage students know back in the 80s he seemed like a genus.
Just don't confused the well informed with the misinformed.
after all you are telling it the best: "But from time to time I try not to forget my online fans and debate in forum's like ST (to show after my huge ego I can still get along with the commoners)"
That I can't argue.
so....how old do you think the Earth is?
The earth is only as old as the Sun.
You see "Science" teaches us the Solar System is "12 Billion" years old... so it must be true It's in the school text books.
These are the same "Scientists that can't even cure the common cold but they know exactly how you got here?
We have "CANCER" but who cares? we have NASA we have Fossils...
It's not that abiogenesis is more obvious than divine intervention, but that it doesn't require the creation of a magical bridge. The fact that all known life is composed of matter and energy supports abiogenesis more than divine creation. If we could not find anything composed of the material that we are composed of except in us, then divine intervention would be a bit more feasible though still more of a leap that abiogenesis. However all things are matter and energy. There's no evidence that it was created, none. There's no evidence that an intelligence source initiated the creation of the universe. There's no reason to assume it did. Ignorance coupled with supers ion fuels the creation of deities. There's much more evidence to suggest man created god than that god created man.
I guess I should have said before, I'm with Hawking too that it's silly to guess what happened before the universe started, so I'm skipping on ahead to the next phase in this discussion which is usually abiogenesis.
But I'm assuming that your claims that burden of "disproof" still falls on the atheist in regards to abiogenesis, correct?
We also have to define "life" in terms that have clear boundaries.
I couldn't have expressed this better myself. I applaud your efforts and agree with you, and even though I am a Catholic Christian, I am a discriminating one who keeps an open mind..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions