The Ultimate Atheist Challenge Thread!

[Loudmouth]

Then why are you no longer a Christian?

For the same reason that you are not a Hindu.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

everyone believes in abiogenesis unless you believe that life has always existed. its just a matter of whether you add god into the equation or not

 

[mikeynov]

Essentially, you've given me a red herring. What you could do is actually answer the question - If random chance could produce the first life, why does it take human intelligence to recreate it?
Have we even succeeded in creating a living cell from non-living matter?

Furthermore, you've committed the fallacy of begging the question - We have no reason to believe that the universe is a closed system.

Peace.

It's not "random chance," it's chemistry. Because the universe works the way it works, life arises under certain conditions. Just like stars arise under certain conditions.

That's the premise - and it's really not that implausible. The "everything just happened to randomly come together" thing isn't what anyone is even proposing, and suggesting so is a pretty clear example of the strawman fallacy.

 

[MartinM]

What you could do is actually answer the question - If random chance could produce the first life, why does it take human intelligence to recreate it?

Why does it take intelligence to recreate a vacuum on Earth? Because Earth is not a vacuum. Why does it take intelligence to recreate a tornado in the lab? Because there is not currently a tornado in the lab. Why does it take intelligence to recreate the conditions under which abiogenesis occurred? Because those conditions do not currently exist on Earth.

Furthermore, you've committed the fallacy of begging the question - We have no reason to believe that the universe is a closed system.

Not that I assumed any such thing, but the Universe = everything that exists.

 

[Matthew777]

everyone believes in abiogenesis unless you believe that life has always existed.

That actually isn't true. Biological life has not always existed and abiogenesis postulates that it arose through natural causes, from non-life. If God created the first life, it would definitely not be abiogenesis because GOD IS LIFE.

Peace.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

What you consider life comes from non-life all the time. N2 is fixed to the soil by bacteria as nitrates, which are used by plants to form amino acids and proteins, which are consumed by animals.

Tell us which step would you consider life to exist; The N2, Nitrates, amino acids, or the proteins? Why?

 

[Matthew777]

For the same reason that you are not a Hindu.

I studied Hinduism for a while before I decided to believe in the Christian faith. I enjoyed reading the Bhagavad-Gita but could find no historical basis to warrant belief. You haven't really answered my question, by the way.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

Because there is not currently a tornado in the lab. Why does it take intelligence to recreate the conditions under which abiogenesis occurred? Because those conditions do not currently exist on Earth.

How can you not see the circular reasoning of this? In order to recreate the conditions under which abiogenesis occurred, you must first assume that it occurred. What you should first do is show that in natural history, the primordial soup that supposedly produced abiogenesis actually existed.
We are able to observe the vacuum of space and a tornado but have we observed this life-generating ooze?

the Universe = everything that exists.

According to the blindness of materialism, it is.

Peace.

 

[MartinM]

How can you not see the circular reasoning of this? In order to recreate the conditions under which abiogenesis occurred, you must first assume that it occurred.

An assumption you forced upon me when you asked me why it would take human intelligence to recreate it. Can't recreate that which didn't occur in the first place. Don't blame me for answering your question. Think about the answer instead.

According to the blindness of materialism, it is.

By the definition of the damn word, it is.

 

[Peris]

do you believe there is a solid separation of what is life and what is non-life?

 

[Loudmouth]

I studied Hinduism for a while before I decided to believe in the Christian faith. I enjoyed reading the Bhagavad-Gita but could find no historical basis to warrant belief. You haven't really answered my question, by the way.

Peace.

I found that religion was invented by humans. Nothing has convinced me otherwise. For instance, religion is society specific instead of Deity specific. It would seem to me that if God were real all religions would be nearly identical. Since they aren't, that means that each religion started independently of the others and is tied to cultural isolation instead of true spiritual revelation.

 

[Matthew777]

An assumption you forced upon me when you asked me why it would take human intelligence to recreate it. Can't recreate that which didn't occur in the first place. Don't blame me for answering your question. Think about the answer instead.

What alternative then would you provide to abiogenesis?

By the definition of the damn word, it is.

Only if the universe is a closed system, it is.

Peace.

 

[MartinM]

What alternative then would you provide to abiogenesis?

Never said I had one, nor am I under any obligation to provide one. This seems like a complete non sequitur to me.

Only if the universe is a closed system, it is.

What word do you propose to use for the set of all things which exist, then?

 

[Matthew777]

For instance, religion is society specific instead of Deity specific.

If that were true, why would severely monotheistic Jews invent that Jesus was the Son of God? That stretches the limits of incredulity. The early Christians gave up their lives for a belief that was contrary to their own culture and were in a position to know whether or not Jesus is the Son of God. Their entire belief in Him was contingent upon the resurrection. If they knew that Jesus was just a man, that he died and that was it, then they wouldn't have died for what they knew was a lie.

It would seem to me that if God were real all religions would be nearly identical.

If Satan exists and is the author of lies then it makes sense that there are so many conflicting religions.

Peace.

 

[Loudmouth]

How can you not see the circular reasoning of this? In order to recreate the conditions under which abiogenesis occurred, you must first assume that it occurred. What you should first do is show that in natural history, the primordial soup that supposedly produced abiogenesis actually existed.
We are able to observe the vacuum of space and a tornado but have we observed this life-generating ooze?

We have not observed this life generating ooze. We have not discovered how life could have started, although scientists have found some very intriguing clues. However, why should we throw up our hands and conclude that it is impossible? I find no reason to, and plenty of precedent for why this type of attitude is wrong (eg the Wright Brothers and Powered flight).

Will we ever discover the secret of abiogenesis? I have no clue, but this is no reason not to search. And until we discover this secret no one can comment on the conditions that are required for abiogenesis to occur.

 

[Matthew777]

Never said I had one, nor am I under any obligation to provide one. This seems like a complete non sequitur to me.

Do you or do you not believe in abiogenesis?

What word do you propose to use for the set of all things which exist, then?

We live in the material universe but the universe is not a closed system if God exists outside of the universe.

Peace.

 

[MartinM]

Do you or do you not believe in abiogenesis?

I find it the most plausible option we have. What of it?

We live in the material universe but the universe is not a closed system if God exists outside of the universe.

'Material' is a useless word tied to a simplistic ontology that almost no one actually holds to any more. We live in the physical Universe, the set of all things which exist. If God exists, he is part of that physical Universe, by definition.

 

[Loudmouth]

If that were true, why would severely monotheistic Jews invent that Jesus was the Son of God?

Why would the majority of Jews deny that Jesus was the Son of God?

That stretches the limits of incredulity. The early Christians gave up their lives for a belief that was contrary to their own culture and were in a position to know whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.

Muslims give up their lives on a daily basis. Does this mean that Muhhamed was a true prophet? Martyrdom is common in every religion, and is even common amongst philosophical positions such as the protection of democracy and nationalism.

Their entire belief in Him was contingent upon the resurrection. If they knew that Jesus was just a man, that he died and that was it, then they wouldn't have died for what they knew was a lie.

They wouldn't be the first in history. Humans have this little thing called pride. It makes us do strange things. The Disciples just didn't want to be wrong, and they paid the price for their hubris.

If Satan exists and is the author of lies then it makes sense that there are so many conflicting religions.

Peace.

Or religion was invented by humans whole cloth.

Occam's Razor favors my interpretation.

 

[Matthew777]

[/size]

Will we ever discover the secret of abiogenesis? I have no clue, but this is no reason not to search. And until we discover this secret no one can comment on the conditions that are required for abiogenesis to occur.

It is not always fallacious to use an appeal to ignorance. Here is an example from my logic textbook:

If qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenom within the range of their expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenom exists, this fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about the question.

"Teams of scientists attempted over a number of decades to detect the existence of luminifeous aether, and failed to do so. Therefore, the luminiferous aether does not exist."
(A Concise Introduction to Logic, Patrick Hurley)


I might as well say the following:

Teams of scientists have attempted over a number of decades to detect the natural origin of life and have failed to do so.
Therefore, the natural origin of life does not exist.


This assertion would essentially be true until proven wrong. It seems that those who cling to abiogenesis do so out of a philosophical necessity. Those who admit it to be false appeal to even "whackier" notions than the existence of God, including space aliens.



Peace.

 

[MartinM]

"Teams of scientists attempted over a number of decades to detect the existence of luminifeous aether, and failed to do so. Therefore, the luminiferous aether does not exist."

Correction; teams of scientist attempted over a number of decades to detect the existence of luminiferous aether using methods which should have detected it if it existed, and failed to do so. Therefore, the lumiferous aether does not exist.