The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

The physical properties of biochemicals.

What specific physical properties?

 

[Speedwell]

What specific physical properties?

All of them--the ability to form complex molecules under the right conditions in particular. Since life is an emergent property of biochemical complexity, abiogenesis is at least a reasonable speculation.

 

[Radrook]

All of them--the ability to form complex molecules under the right conditions in particular. Since life is an emergent property of biochemical complexity, abiogenesis is at least a reasonable speculation.

A chemical reaction explains all the coded information in DNA? Information that needs RNA to be interpreted and carried out by nano-biological machines? That doesn't indicate a designing mind to you? Amazing! How do you manage to ignore that and keep a stiff upper lip?

 

[Speedwell]

A chemical reaction explains all the coded information in DNA? Information that needs RNA to be interpreted and carried out by nano-biological machines? That doesn't indicate a designing mind to you? Amazing! How do you manage to ignore that and keep a stiff upper lip?

No, it only indicates an incompetent god. The God I believe in is capable of creating a complete system of Material and Efficient natural causality able to account for the origin and diversity of life without the petty tinkering of your "Intelligent Designer."

 

[Radrook]

No, it only indicates an incompetent god. The God I believe in is capable of creating a complete system of Material and Efficient natural causality able to account for the origin and diversity of life without the petty tinkering of your "Intelligent Designer."

Ah! I did not realize that you are a deist. My apologies.

BTW
To me your abiogenesis description seems like totally unnecessary roundabout, inefficient petty tinkering of your god. So I guess the feeling is mutual and you won't mind.

 

[Speedwell]

Ah! I did not realize that you are a deist. My apologies.

LOL! I am not a deist, as you well know, so your apology is worth no more than your "inductive leaps."

No, a deist generally believes is a god who acts as a "first cause" setting the whole thing going, with no personal intervention after that. I believe in a god who is continually involved in his creation as Final cause.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW
I don't celebrate Christmas.

And you're praying to find a Christian wife?

 

[Radrook]

And you're praying to find a Christian wife?

There are millions of Christians who don't celebrate Christmas.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are millions of Christians who don't celebrate Christmas.

UCGs?

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe in a god who is continually involved in his creation as Final cause.

Until when?

He burns it up and starts over?

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[Freodin]

Describe the observed pattern on which you base your conclusion that abiogenesis happens.

The physical properties of biochemicals.

Good try, Speedwell, but not quite. But your slight error here might be understandable, given that it is based on the reciprocal misunderstanding of the point that shows in Radrook's question.

See, Radrook, the "rational people" do not conclude that abiogenesis happens at all. The "rational people" in this case, the atheists might conclude, on a number of observed patterns which include the observation that Speedwell mentioned, that abiogenesis could have happened. Or not, it is not a necessary conclusion for atheism.

And now let's turn the tables again: describe the observational pattern on which you base your conclusion that divine creation of life happens.

There is none.

The "rational people" here don't make the "inductive leap" to a belief in God, because they don't have an observational pattern to back it up.

You might almost get away with calling the atheists just as irrational as the theists... but this would simply show that you still do not understand atheists.

 

[Radrook]

UCGs?

JHWs

 

[Kylie]

UCGs?

Actually, back in the 1600s, the Puritans had laws forbidding the celebration of Christmas... Christmas controversy - Wikipedia

 

[MissRowy]

Very true....anyway what is a UCG?? Pardon my ignorance but some acronyms just fly over my head

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, back in the 1600s, the Puritans had laws forbidding the celebration of Christmas... Christmas controversy - Wikipedia

The Puritans can take a hike.

I'm a Pilgrim sort of guy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very true....anyway what is a UCG?? Pardon my ignorance but some acronyms just fly over my head

United Church of God

They are non-Trinitarian.

Here is a list of some of their beliefs: doctrine

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no reason whatever why it cannot be both. The identification of a natural cause for a phenomenon does not rule out divine causality.

Nothing rules out magical invisible beings playing behind the scenes. That's one of the reasons that they're not a scientific idea.

 

[KCfromNC]

If it were only about evidence, how could we each come to diametrically opposed beliefs?

Some related questions - if it were only about evidence why are there so many contradictory religious beliefs? And why do those beliefs seem to be best correlated to where one happened to be born?

 

[KCfromNC]

LOL! I am not a deist, as you well know, so your apology is worth no more than your "inductive leaps."

It is quite interesting how this thread is filled with posters who claims to know the secret motivations of vast groups of people ... and who also can't manage to read the Faith: line next to the posters they're telling those secrets about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing rules out magical invisible beings playing behind the scenes.

Science can.

That's one of the reasons that they're not a scientific idea.

Looks like you're SOL* then.

* Short on luck.