God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because we don't know where life came from is not evidence that God created life.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We aren't claiming that ignorance of a proven phenomenon's cause is a basis for disbelief. The problem is that the phenomenon of abiogenesis is not in the same category as lightning. We plainly can observe lightning occurring. We cannot and have never seen abiogenesis occurring nor can it even be forced to occur in a lab. So the analogy is flawed.
I don't see Hitch coming over, so I will wait further.
Perhaps you should first finish your previous lines of conversation before going of into new ones.I don't see Hitch coming over, so I will wait further.
We've also never observed a non-human intelligent designer, or non-human intelligent design in progress. In fact, we know far more about how abiogenesis probably occurred than we do about anything regarding the mysterious 'intelligent designer'...The problem with that analogy is that the wind has been observed to move things spatially whereas abiogenesis has never been observed in nature or even in a lab. That fatal differential flaw makes the analogy false.
Pachomius Yesterday at 5:13 PM #633 said:Dear Hitch, I find your thoughts on God existing or not, in re that you are both agnostic and atheist, to be most inviting from us both to examine each one's way of thinking.
In most particular, what I call the motivational direction of your thinking, namely, you think for a definite purpose which is very interesting for us both to examine, and concur whether you and I are correct on our reciprocal finding on our respective motivational way of thinking.
For example, I find your way to thinking to be motivationally directed to making your position what I might at this point in time call, fuzzy.
And then we can examine why you and I each respectively and reciprocally adopt each one's way of thinking: what is the purpose ultimately of our each one's adoption of our each one's peculiar motivational thinking way.
Now, of course you can tell me also what kind of motivational way you see me to be into: everything I examine in you and how, you too do it on me, okay?
In other words, we will examine each other's way of thinking, in regard to motivation, and why we adopt the motivational goal of our each one's respective motivational thinking way.
And all that in regard to the issue God exists or not.
What do you say?
Dear Hitch, I find your thoughts on God existing or not, in re that you are both agnostic and atheist, to be most inviting from us both to examine each one's way of thinking.
In most particular, what I call the motivational direction of your thinking, namely, you think for a definite purpose which is very interesting for us both to examine, and concur whether you and I are correct on our reciprocal finding on our respective motivational way of thinking.
For example, I find your way to thinking to be motivationally directed to making your position what I might at this point in time call, fuzzy.
And then we can examine why you and I each respectively and reciprocally adopt each one's way of thinking: what is the purpose ultimately of our each one's adoption of our each one's peculiar motivational thinking way.
Now, of course you can tell me also what kind of motivational way you see me to be into: everything I examine in you and how, you too do it on me, okay?
In other words, we will examine each other's way of thinking, in regard to motivation, and why we adopt the motivational goal of our each one's respective motivational thinking way.
And all that in regard to the issue God exists or not.
What do you say?
I still don't see Hitch coming over, so I will still wait further.
I still don't see Hitch coming over, so I will still wait further.
God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because we don't know where life came from is not evidence that God created life.
But you aren't claiming that you don't know. You are claiming that the mindless unguided chemicals did it.God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because we don't know where life came from is not evidence that God created life.
In the mean time, perhaps you could answer a question for me.
I define Leprechauns as the cause or rainbows. To prove that Leprechauns exist, I submit the existence of rainbows as proof that Leprechauns exist.
Do you now believe that Leprechauns exist? If not, why did my argument fail to convince you?
But you aren't claiming that you don't know. You are claiming that the chemicals did it.
We've also never observed a non-human intelligent designer, or non-human intelligent design in progress. In fact, we know far more about how abiogenesis probably occurred than we do about anything regarding the mysterious 'intelligent designer'...
If, by 'faith', you mean a high degree of confidence, then yes, it was a statement of my high degree of confidence that the lab work of the multiple investigations into abiogenesis is more informative about what may have happened to give rise to life on the early Earth than the empty words 'intelligent designer'.This is ultimately your personal "statement of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).
Being a living thing does not imply intelligence or the ability to design... but hey, if it makes you happy to believe in a universe that is a living thing (and that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a universe that is inanimate), good luck to you.The irony of course, is that if the universe is indeed a *living thing* (Panentheism), even abiogenesis does not preclude the existence of an "intelligent designer", one that works "naturally".
If, by 'faith', you mean a high degree of confidence, then yes, it was a statement of my high degree of confidence that the lab work of the multiple investigations into abiogenesis is more informative about what may have happened to give rise to life on the early Earth than the empty words 'intelligent designer'.
Being a living thing does not imply intelligence or the ability to design... but hey, if it makes you happy to believe in a universe that is a living thing (and that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a universe that is inanimate), good luck to you.
Far too much risk in directly addressing your posts.
Not me-YOU FOLKS make it sound that way via attribution of reasoning characteristics to mindless chemicals,.You make it sound like an oxygen molecule and some carbon got together and said, "Hey, I've got this great idea..." and became life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?