The Ultimate Atheist Challenge Thread!

[Tomk80]

If matter cannot be created or destroyed and energy cannot either then neiter can life. How is that too much of a leap?

Peace.

Matter can be created and destroyed. Matter is just a form of energy. We can create anti-matter, let it react with matter and get a lot of energy with both matter and anti-matter being completely destroyed.

Life is the result of the circulation of matter and energy. Furthermore, life is continuously created and destroyed.

The only constant is energy, which is constanty converted between one form and another.

 

[Tomk80]

Nonetheless, the concept of abiogenesis begs the question of how such change from non-living matter to complex living organisms could take place.

How do you mea, complex living organisms. What abiogenesis needs to do is how the first simple living organisms arose. The rest is evolution.

I will not propose that a deity must have been involved because that would be an appeal to ignorance. But assuming that abiogensis must be true due to the lack of a better explanation is also fallacious.

Peace.

Nobody has done that, and noone has stated that yet in this thread. Abiogenesis theories also do not depend on the assumption that abiogenesis must be true, only on the reasoning that it is very likely that it happened. We don't know is still a valid answer.

 

[Matthew777]

Matter can be created and destroyed.

That is an interesting claim, please provide evidence.

Life is the result of the circulation of matter and energy. Furthermore, life is continuously created and destroyed.

Life is never created, it only arises from previous life. Life is essentially never destroyed given that an organism becomes food for other life.

The only constant is energy, which is constanty converted between one form and another.

The only constant is Christ for He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Energy and matter were created by Him.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

What abiogenesis needs to do is how the first simple living organisms arose.

As far as I have seen, the scenarios proposed are improbable. There is no more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for the special creation of the first life.
If logic breaks down before the big bang then how does it not break down with the beginning of life?

Peace.

 

[Phred]

That is an interesting claim, please provide evidence.

E=MC2

The only constant is Christ for He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Energy and matter were created by Him.

Talk about an appeal to ignorance.

 

[TheNewAge]

As far as I have seen, the scenarios proposed are improbable. There is no more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for the special creation of the first life.
If logic breaks down before the big bang then how does it not break down with the beginning of life?

Peace.

They are improbable IN YOUR OPINION.

The big bang was a cosmic event with cosmic implications. Abiogenesis is a local event as we are discussing it. Logic was still prevalent at that time.

 

[Tomk80]

That is an interesting claim, please provide evidence.

It follows from E=MC2

This link gives more information.

Life is never created, it only arises from previous life. Life is essentially never destroyed given that an organism becomes food for other life.

You have a strange definition of life. An organism that becomes food is not life. It is dead, it is only matter, nothing more. Life is only matter, nothing more. You can believe it is more, but there is no reason to do so.

The only constant is Christ for He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Energy and matter were created by Him.

Peace.

That is your belief, not fact. Stating it is fact, doesn't make it so.

 

[rjw]

You've missed the point. Theists believe that God created the first life or at least had some role in its creation whereas atheists believe that life arose spontaneously, on its own. This is your opportunity to show that life arose in such a non-thesitic way.

Peace.

Hello Matthew777,

Given that naturalists are trying to show how life could have arisen in a naturalistic manner, then how can your challenge be met? All one can do at this stage is appeal to a body of experiments which demonstrate aspects of abiogenesis. However no solid theory exists at this stage which can bind these separate experiments and observations such that we can say, "this is probably how it happened". (Lucuspa (theist) would disagree and he told me so in no uncertain terms a year or so ago. However I still could not accept his argument.)

And are you not allowing for theists to believe that X (creation) happened while demanding that atheists show that Y (abiogenesis) happened?

Importantly, we do have a growing body of experimental evidence to demonstrate aspects abiogenesis. Do you have a growing body of experimental evidence to demonstrate how the supernatural did it - in particular your version of the supernatural? Or again, is your challenge to demand that we show through experiment how abiogenesis occurred while you allow yourself to believe only that your god did it?

Your question is a bit like asking atheists to show that proteins fold (a major problem in biochemistry) naturalistically while allowing theists to believe that gods are involved in folding them – and somehow equating these two systems of “knowing”.

If theists wish to believe, then that is one thing. However, not only to atheists believe that abiogenesis is the way but they are also trying to understand how it could be. And so are many theists.

In essence then, your challenge is kind of a strawman.


Regards, Roland

 

[Tomk80]

As far as I have seen, the scenarios proposed are improbable. There is no more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for the special creation of the first life.
If logic breaks down before the big bang then how does it not break down with the beginning of life?

Peace.

Because no physical laws break down at the beginning of life. With the beginning of the universe, physicial laws that we know break down. Abiogenesis is a chemical process, no breaking down of any laws.

 

[Matthew777]

E=MC2

When matter is lost, it is an exception to the rule.

Talk about an appeal to ignorance.

Since when is acknowledging the Creator of the universe an appeal to ignorance? We may not know from science that Christ is God but we do know from other sources.

Peace.

 

[Dragar]

Atheists hold to abiogenesis, that life arose from non-living matter.

Some atheists can answer the question of how life arose with an honest 'I don't know'. I keep an open mind on the subject, but obviously won't believe it was a god until I see some evidence.

 

[Matthew777]

An organism that becomes food is not life.

An organism that becomes food provides the energy necessary for other life and therefore life moves on.

Life is only matter, nothing more.

Life only arises from previous life. The first life arose from an eternal life.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

Because no physical laws break down at the beginning of life.

You have yet to establish that biogenesis is not a law.

Peace.

 

[Dragar]

If matter cannot be created or destroyed and energy cannot either then neither can life. How is that too much of a leap?

First of all, as others have commented, matter (mass) and energy are interchangable quantities. We know this from Einstein.

Second of all, conservation of energy (and therefore mass) does not hold for very small periods of time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle can be written as:

 

[Dragar]

Life only arises from previous life.

That's an interesting claim. Prove it.

And by that, I mean prove it is impossible - and I will accept a violation of known physical laws as good enough - that life can arise from non-life.

I suspect you'll find that an impossible challenge, considering the boundaries between life and non-life are entirely arbitrary - really definitional - and become very fuzzy when you look at some of the most primitive forms of 'life'.

 

[Matthew777]

That's an interesting claim. Prove it.

The point of this thread is for you to prove that it isn't a law. Given that spontaneous generation has never been observed, the burdon of proof is on the one who claims that it happened.

Peace.

 

[Loudmouth]

When matter is lost, it is an exception to the rule.

Matter is also created in particle accelarators. When you smash two sub atomic particles into each other at high speeds the kinetic energy is transferred into creating more matter. It is a bit like smashing two pianos together and getting two pianos and a guitar out of it.

Since when is acknowledging the Creator of the universe an appeal to ignorance?

Here is your argument. We don't know how life started, therefore God did it. It is a God-of-the-Gaps argument, otherwise known as an argument from ignorance. There is just as much evidence that time travelling leprechauns started life.

Here are the facts. The oldest fossils we have are of single celled organisms, probably photosynthesizers such as those found in stromolites (if memory serves). This fits in well with abiogenesis, since we would expect the oldest fossils to be simple organisms. We also know that chemicals used by organisms can form spotaneously in the absence of any organisms, such as in comets and nebula. We also know that life follows the same natural laws as those used in high school chemistry. Life is nothing more than an ongoing, replicating chemical reaction, from a mechanistic point of view. If you were able to show how life follows a separate list of laws than non-life then you would deal a death blow to abiogenesis.

 

[Matthew777]

Matter is also created in particle accelarators.

Our ability to violate the natural order is part of what makes mankind unique.

Here is your argument. We don't know how life started, therefore God did it. It is a God-of-the-Gaps argument, otherwise known as an argument from ignorance. There is just as much evidence that time travelling leprechauns started life.

As I've explained before, it would only be an argument from ignorance if I were to make a claim of absolute certainty. Outside of divine revelation, the best we can really say is that we don't know.

Here are the facts.

Is the previous existence of the environment necessary for abiogenesis a fact?

Peace.

 

[Dragar]

The point of this thread is for you to prove that it isn't a law. Given that spontaneous generation has never been observed, the burdon of proof is on the one who claims that it happened.

Who has claimed it has happened? If there is no evidence (or simply an ignorance of such evidence) the best position one can take is that of 'I don't know' - honest admittance of insufficient evidence to form a belief. Edited to add: However, I rather suspect that life did form via abiogenesis, because we know of self-replicating molecules and self-perpetuating reactions. Life, at the end of the day, is very complicated chemistry.

And if I were to hedge my bets, I'd be more inclined to posit something we know exists (chemistry) than something we do not have a shred of evidence for (a god).

As for the first statement - "The point of this thread is for you to prove that it isn't a law." Think about what you are asking.

You are asking us to prove that it is not impossible!

If you can't see the insanity in asking such a question, I'm unsure how I can help you.

Oh, wait. Prove that a God creating life is not impossible, Matthew.

 

[Matthew777]

If there is no evidence (or simply an ignorance of such evidence) the best position one can take is that of 'I don't know' - honest admittance of insufficient evidence to form a belief.

In the absence of divine revelation, that is true. Divine revelation, I undersand, is outside the realm of scientific investigation.

You are asking us to prove that it is not impossible!

Providing evidence that abiogenesis happened would show that it is not impossible.

Peace.