The Ultimate Atheist Challenge Thread!

[Matthew777]

Matthew stay away from proclamation about physics when you obviously know nothing about it.

I do not doubt that when it comes to physics, I have a lot to learn but the history surrounding the New Testament is one of my strong points.
I suggest that you stay away from proclamation about the New Testament considering that you know nothing about it. Please don't act like you are a logical thinker when you are making silly proclamations on Biblical scholarship.

Finally, you assertions about what happenned in the "tomb of Jesus" and other parts of the New Testament as if they are historical facts is just comical - the only basis for this is a collection of books written many decades to several centuries after the events in question and then culled by committee at the Council of Nicea. If you want to say you hold these things to be true based on faith, then fine, but when you suggest that the resurrection is a historical fact, then you are just talking about of your butt.

All four of the Gospels were written within the lifetime of Christ. Even if we were to give them a later date, it could no later than the first century. The best Biblical scholarship attests to this fact. When you suggest that the Gospels were written centuries afterward, you are talking out of your butt.

BTW - as for the open question. One, you don't seem to know what abiogenesis is. All it means is life arising from non-life.

Yes, I know that is what abiogenesis is. The point of this thread it to prove that it happened.

Peace.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes, I know that is what abiogenesis is. The point of this thread it to prove that it happened.

Peace.

Then why did you include evolution in your definition of it (with your statements regarding the start of photosynthesis and sex).

And why would you want to 'prove' anything. It's a stupid word when using in a scientific discussion. All we can do is provide a logical basis for a model given the current observations, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing is ever proven in science. When will people finally stop using that word in scientific discussions? It's total nonsense.

 

[Physics_guy]

I do not doubt that when it comes to physics, I have a lot to learn but the history surrounding the New Testament is one of my strong points.
I suggest that you stay away from proclamation about the New Testament considering that you know nothing about it. Please don't act like you are a logical thinker when you are making silly proclamations on Biblical scholarship.

You sure do not show it here. You simply assume to be true - not a logical position. There are many other possible explanations - even an infinite number of other supernatural positions that could be true. Please do not confuse faith with historical fact.

All four of the Gospels were written within the lifetime of Christ. Even if we were to give them a later date, it could no later than the first century. The best Biblical scholarship attests to this fact. When you suggest that the Gospels were written centuries afterward, you are talking out of your butt.

Actually, none of the Gospels were within the lifetime of Jesus - he died at about the age of 30 long before any of them were written. Furthermore, many Biblical scholars put Mark as the first Gospel penned at about 80 CE (half a century after the events in question - or thereabouts). The other gospels were penned anywhere in the decades that followed, with most scholarship putting the other three somewhere beyond 100 CE, with Luke and John likely as late as 130 CE - a full century after the events in question.

Now, if the Gospel of Q (likely source for several others) and maybe even the Gospel of Thomas weren't cast out by the fine priests of Nicea, you might have something to work with, but unfortunately you don't, and the burning of libraries by early Christians certainly didn't help.

BTW - I know a thing or two about history as well. I just don't view it through your Jesus-tinted lenses. I don't bregrudge your faith - I do however laugh at people who won't admit that it is faith and try to pretend it is historical fact.

Yes, I know that is what abiogenesis is. The point of this thread it to prove that it happened.

Easy:

1. The early Universe was incapable of supporting life - no complexity is possible at the temperatures and densities described by Big Bang Cosmology.

2. Life exists now.

3. Therefore life began at sometime.

How, however, remains the question.

 

[Matthew777]

Then why did you include evolution in your definition of it (with your statements regarding the start of photosynthesis and sex).

Once you claim that the first life arose out of nothing, on its own, you also have to explain how life acquired sex and photosynthesis afterward.

And why would you want to 'prove' anything. It's a stupid word when using in a scientific discussion.

Aren't we talking about natural history? Is there any way to show that the primordial soup historically existed?

All we can do is provide a logical basis for a model given the current observations, nothing more, nothing less.

In the absence of positive evidence, how would abiogenesis be any more logical than divine intervention?

Peace.

 

[MartinM]

Once you claim that the first life arose out of nothing, on its own, you also have to explain how life acquired sex and photosynthesis afterward.

That would be evolution.

In the absence of positive evidence, how would abiogenesis be any more logical than divine intervention?

Abiogenesis: uses only existing natural laws.
Divine intervention: invokes a deity.

Hello, Occam.

 

[mikeynov]

Once you claim that the first life arose out of nothing, on its own,

Dear Matthew,

Please stop reiterating obviously fallacious rhetoric for the sake of your argument.

Sincerely, Logic.

you also have to explain how life acquired sex and photosynthesis afterward.

Well, you don't HAVE to know EVERYTHING about the evolution of life to realize it happened. Obviously.

By your same logic, you could say "you would have to explain how life acquired <any characteristic.>"

How's that abiogenesis again?

 

[Tomk80]

Once you claim that the first life arose out of nothing, on its own, you also have to explain how life acquired sex and photosynthesis afterward.

Guess which theory does that, Matthew. Are you really that dense?

Aren't we talking about natural history? Is there any way to show that the primordial soup historically existed?

We can show a model based on evidence that some conditions should be present. We cannot prove anything in science. Not with abiogenesis, not with evolution, not with gravity, not with diseases, not with physics, not with anything. Science doesn't do proof! Ever! Get over it! So far, you're lesson philosophy of science 101.

In the absence of positive evidence, how would abiogenesis be any more logical than divine intervention?

Peace.

Why jump to divine intervention? 'I don't know' is a perfectly reasonable answer.

 

[Matthew777]

Actually, none of the Gospels were within the lifetime of Jesus - he died at about the age of 30 long before any of them were written.

You've missed the point. If Jesus had lived to old age, the Gospels would have been written before he had died. Aside from John, it is certain that they were written within his generation.

Furthermore, many Biblical scholars put Mark as the first Gospel penned at about 80 CE (half a century after the events in question - or thereabouts). The other gospels were penned anywhere in the decades that followed, with most scholarship putting the other three somewhere beyond 100 CE, with Luke and John likely as late as 130 CE - a full century after the events in question.

These Biblical scholars do not represent the majority and are the most liberal. Not liberal politically but liberal in their understanding of theology. Why?
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus prophecized that the temple would fall within his own generation. However, if you rule out a priori that Jesus could predict the future, then you must place the Gospels at later than A.D. 70 in order to assume that the Gospel authors themselves made up this prophecy after the fact. However, for one without a philosophical presupposition against Christ, the facts are much more clear - Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written no later than A.D. 70 and John, the latest Gospel, no later than the first century.

Now, if the Gospel of Q (likely source for several others) and maybe even the Gospel of Thomas weren't cast out by the fine priests of Nicea, you might have something to work with, but unfortunately you don't, and the burning of libraries by early Christians certainly didn't help.

There is no evidence at all for Q, it exists only within the mind of the skeptic.
The Gospel of Thomas was written decades after the Canonical Gospels and included Gnostic tendencies.

1. The early Universe was incapable of supporting life - no complexity is possible at the temperatures and densities described by Big Bang Cosmology.

2. Life exists now.

3. Therefore life began at sometime.

How, however, remains the question.

Abiogenesis postulates that life arose from non-living matter, on its own. One should be able to show that it happend, if it did.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

Guess which theory does that, Matthew. Are you really that dense?

Charles Darwin, before he was totally agnostic, proposed the possibility that the species currently living on earth evolved from some sort of specially created life form. I don't understand how that is any more illogical than believing that life arose by itself.

Peace.

 

[Physics_guy]

You've missed the point. If Jesus had lived to old age, the Gospels would have been written before he had died. Aside from John, it is certain that they were written within his generation.

Strange statement, if Jesus didn't die on the cross wouldn't he be around for the writing of the Da Vinci Code, Gone with the Wind, and an Idiot's Guide to Skydiving? He was God, right - if he didn't let himself die on the cross, why would he have died at all?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus prophecized that the temple would fall within his own generation. However, if you rule out a priori that Jesus could predict the future, then you must place the Gospels at later than A.D. 70 in order to assume that the Gospel authors themselves made up this prophecy after the fact. However, for one without a philosophical presupposition against Christ, the facts are much more clear - Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written no later than A.D. 70 and John, the latest Gospel, no later than the first century.

Oooh, I guess we are at an impasse - and so are historians BTW. We don't have original copies of any of the Gospels, and we have no indication from other works exactly when they were written. So claiming with absolute certitude that they were written when you are suggesting is a little silly isn't it? It is comical that you consider some heavily edited and culled books written at best 40 to 70 years (by your count) are absoutely accurate depictions of what occured (even though they disagree with each other in many places) to be absolutely historically accurate. Please admit that is a faith position and move on - you are just continuing to sound silly.

There is no evidence at all for Q, it exists only within the mind of the skeptic.
The Gospel of Thomas was written decades after the Canonical Gospels and included Gnostic tendencies.

I know exactly what the Gnostic Gospels are and what Thomas was. Some historians put its date at 50 CE - well before even the earliest estimates for Mark. Now, that date is not certain. I would never suggest it is. You however seem to think yours are.

As for Q - well the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and historians believe it to be a source document for Matthew and Luke. It is not just some conjuration of a the skeptic.

Abiogenesis postulates that life arose from non-living matter, on its own. One should be able to show that it happend, if it did.

You keep using words you don't understand. Abiogenesis states that life arose from non-life. It says absolutely nothing about the existence or intervention of God. Furthermore, there is no single abiogenesis. There are several hypotheses right now, but there is no theory of abiogenesis to defend.

Now do you want to talk about the specific strengths and weakness of particular abiogenesis models? Would you bother to even read what they are? I doubt it.

 

[Matthew777]

Strange statement, if Jesus didn't die on the cross wouldn't he be around for the writing of the Da Vinci Code, Gone with the Wind, and an Idiot's Guide to Skydiving? He was God, right - if he didn't let himself die on the cross, why would he have died at all?

Again, you've totally missed the point. Are you really that dense? The Gospels were written within Christ's generation.

Please admit that is a faith position and move on - you are just continuing to sound silly.

Please admit that you know nothing of the history surrounding the composition of the New Testament and move on - you are just continuing to sound silly.

I know exactly what the Gnostic Gospels are and what Thomas was. Some historians put its date at 50 CE - well before even the earliest estimates for Mark. Now, that date is not certain. I would never suggest it is. You however seem to think yours are.

Wrong again. Only a minority of scholars place its date at 50 CE while the majority place it well into the second century.

As for Q - well the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and historians believe it to be a source document for Matthew and Luke. It is not just some conjuration of a the skeptic.

There is no evidence that Q actually existed, it is only an assumption based on the similarities in the Synoptic Gospels. In the absence of any actual Q document, it is just as logical to assume that divine inspiration is responsible for the similarities.

You keep using words you don't understand. Abiogenesis states that life arose from non-life. It says absolutely nothing about the existence or intervention of God.

If life arose from non-life, on its own and by itself, then it arose without divine intervention.

Peace.

 

[variant]

Abiogenesis postulates that life arose from non-living matter, on its own. One should be able to show that it happend, if it did.

This doesn’t follow. Please be intellectually honest.



If life in fact did arise from non living chemicals, it doesn’t follow that current science or humanity in general has the necessary ability to recreate it now, or specifically to know about how it happened in the first place. These specifics may simply be lost to history.



If we knew enough about the process to recreate it, you could certainly say that those conditions wouldn’t exist if we (an intelligent species) were not creating it, or that intelligence is required to recreate it. Indeed intelligent design is not falsifiable by science (you've said as much in many other threads).



If we had an example of an emerging life that we found in the universe and watched it over a few militia maybe that would settle your stomach a bit, but then again, we aren't advanced enough to find ANY other life, let alone a planet with the specific conditions required to carry out a gathering of this data. Even in this scenario seeing the budding simple self replicating life forms arise from complex chemical systems would be indistinguishable from what one might expect if God were positively intervening.



So, answer this. Are you truly being honest with your self and us with your assessment here?



For your consistent attack of atheism, I ask this question. Do you think if you took away all cultural assumptions that God exists away, then studied life to the degree that it is possible today, would you necessarily assume a supernatural being in the beginning of life, and if so why? I find your assertions of “counter intuitiveness” quite empty.

 

[Physics_guy]

Again, you've totally missed the point. Are you really that dense? The Gospels were written within Christ's generation.

Seems you can't even grasp humor. Sad.

Please admit that you know nothing of the history surrounding the composition of the New Testament and move on - you are just continuing to sound silly.

This copying game is infantile. I do know quite a bit about the composition and history of the New Testament, I will not hazard a guess whether I know more than you, but I know more than many about the topic. I found it interesting for a while and read quite a few books on the topic. I simply asked you to admit that you take your position on faith - something that shouldn't be hard for a Christian. Why is that so difficult for you? Is it simply arrogance, or would a later date for the writings of the Gospels dismantle your faith? I'm kinda curious now.

Wrong again. Only a minority of scholars place its date at 50 CE while the majority place it well into the second century.

Actually, I was not wrong - I said "some historians" - I never said anything about the majority or the minority nor did I make any indication of how many think that the 50 CE date is accurate. Furthremore, I stated that there was no way to be certain of that date - and alluded that your dates that you seem to believe are absolutely certain are in the same situation. Not an unreasonable position to take. I think you need a class in reading comprehension.

There is no evidence that Q actually existed, it is only an assumption based on the similarities in the Synoptic Gospels. In the absence of any actual Q document, it is just as logical to assume that divine inspiration is responsible for the similarities.

You keep using that word (logical), I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that it exists - similarities in the text, some eerily similar - makes it look like Matthew and Luke were some early plaigerisers.

Now, do we have copy of Q, no. Kinda hard when most of the great libraries were burned in the early years of Christian rule - those nasty books would hurt people, I'm sure.

Your appeal to the supernatural is a useless lack of an explanation and could be used by anyone to "explain" absolutely anything. That is pretty much why it is never "logical" to assume the supernatural as you are. Read up on old Occam sometime - he's a hoot.

If life arose from non-life, on its own and by itself, then it arose without divine intervention.

What does "on its own and by itself" mean? Do you realize that no scientific theory says anything about the intervention, manipulation, or existence of any supernatural entity? General Relativity might describe gravity extremely well, but it does not eliminate the involvement of the supernatural in the motion of planets - it simply ignores the possibility. Germ Theory does say that demons aren't causing diseases, it just says that micro-organisms are; perhaps bacteria are demons or demons control viruses like little remote control cars.

You see, science does not eliminate God or pixies or demons or any other supernatural beings.

Now, why couldn't Fox's proto-cells be an accurate description of how early life formed, with God stirring the pot invisibly?

Now, how would one tell the difference between proto-cells arising through purely natural processes and those arising through supernaturally influenced processes that for all appearances look like natural processes?

 

[Matthew777]

Seems you can't even grasp humor. Sad.

I am allergic to unnecessary humor, especially when used as a diversion.

I simply asked you to admit that you take your position on faith - something that shouldn't be hard for a Christian. Why is that so difficult for you? Is it simply arrogance, or would a later date for the writings of the Gospels dismantle your faith? I'm kinda curious now.

The fact is that the later date isn't supported by actual history. However, I must assert that history cannot prove theology. We can prove as to whether or not the events of the Gospels historically happened but not what these events ultimately mean. For example, if Jesus were Lord Krishna incarnate, He could have still rose from the dead.

Furthremore, I stated that there was no way to be certain of that date - and alluded that your dates that you seem to believe are absolutely certain are in the same situation. Not an unreasonable position to take. I think you need a class in reading comprehension.

I am certain that the majority holds to the later date and I have no reason to disagree with them.

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that it exists - similarities in the text, some eerily similar - makes it look like Matthew and Luke were some early plaigerisers.

If the Gospels are true, then they were written with divine inspiration. If they were written with divine inspiration, that would explain their similarity.
I am sorry if this is circular reasoning but it is no better than appealing to a document which no one has produced.

Abiogenesis postulates something which is contrary to intuition and observation - that life arose from non-life. It's the same as claiming that the matter of the universe arose from non-matter or that the energy of the universe arose from non-energy.
If you honestly believe that something arose from nothing then the burdon of proof is on you. Nonetheless, that doesn't make you automatically wrong and I'm willing to hear you out.

Peace.

 

[Physics_guy]

It's the same as claiming that the matter of the universe arose from non-matter or that the energy of the universe arose from non-energy.

This irritates me.

Mass and Energy are mathematically equivalent. The early Universe had no "matter" as you understand likely understand the term. The Universe had to cool quite a bit before the first protons could form - and it was a long time after that before they were able to clump together (vastly oversimplified, but...). As far as terms go, "matter" came from "energy."

Hwere did the energy for the Universe come from? Who knows - but there are some ideas. One interesting one is that there isn't really any net energy in the Universe - everything we see from light to people to planet to stars are all just clumpings of positive energy bounded by exactly equal negative energy in the curvature of spacetime.

BTW - all your stuff about historical fact and what we can historically verify as true is just comical. You believe the gospels to be true - they cannot be verified to be true. I am sure you will never understand nor admit this, but it is the case. They may be true, but there is no way to show that they are true or simply partly true. Most historians look at all other ancient texts involving the supernatural the same way - parts may be true, but it is logical to remain skeptical of the extraordinary claims. You just seem to have missed that last part. I wonder if you read the Illiad would you believe that Aphrodite guided Paris's arrow into Achilles's heel?

 

[Matthew777]

You believe the gospels to be true - they cannot be verified to be true. I am sure you will never understand nor admit this, but it is the case. They may be true, but there is no way to show that they are true or simply partly true.

Why not utilize the same methods with the Gospels that we would use for other ancient primary source documents?

Peace.

 

[Tomk80]

Charles Darwin, before he was totally agnostic, proposed the possibility that the species currently living on earth evolved from some sort of specially created life form. I don't understand how that is any more illogical than believing that life arose by itself.

Peace.

Don't switch topics Matthew, it's moronic. You stated that abiogenesis should also explain the evolution of sex and photosynthesis, while these are explained by the theory of evolution. You were wrong in stating that. Please just admit that you were wrong, in stead of this endless dodging of yours.

 

[Tomk80]

It's the same as claiming that the matter of the universe arose from non-matter or that the energy of the universe arose from non-energy.

This irritates me. You have already been shown, by several people, that matter does indeed arise from non-matter. Or, in other words, that matter is just a condensed form of energy. Why do you keep on making this mistake. Do you need read the responses and study them, Matthew.

 

[Tomk80]

Why not utilize the same methods with the Gospels that we would use for other ancient primary source documents?

Peace.

We do. That leaves a lot to be unverifiable. You just don't like that conclusion.

 

[Jet Black]

Without appealing to TalkOrigins or Internet Infidels, provide the best evidence you can of abiogenesis.


GO!


Peace.

I'm not allowed to appeal to myself? (others have already asked why this is an Atheist Challenge)