I suspect a lot religious and spiritual belief stems from that failure. Even my own.
Me too, it was the identification of that failure early in my youth that put me on my current path.
Closer to what ?
Every topic that comes on, you come out with the same rhetoric, all of which is unsubstantiated nonsense. You never stop to think what it is you are left with do you? Your magic and luck will not do, even if you do use the get out clause of I don't know, whilst you tell everyone else they are wrong! How ironic.
I do not practice magic, I do not worship luck, I put one foot in front of the other and move forward. That's all, I waste as little time as possible contemplating my navel or worrying about omnipotent beings who demonstrate their superiority by trying to trick stupid humans ... that's obviously foolish.
How did life get it's start? Did life arise spontaneously from nonliving matter?
Scientists know more about the chemistry and molecular structure of life than ever before, yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates nonliving matter from even the simplest living cell. Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey, interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. But evolution cannot explain the source of the information.
Furthermore, protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung together in a specific sequence. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,” writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”
I found this to also give evidence for my conclusion...
Animals and humans develop from a single fertilized egg. Inside the embryo, cells multiply and eventually specialize, taking on different shapes and functions to form distinct parts of the body. Evolution cannot explain how each cell “knows” what to become and where it should move within the organism.
After considering these facts, I believe life did not come spontaneously from nonliving matter.
Life most likely arose slowly, step by step, and our inability to see something go from dead to alive in a single lighting flash does not surprise me. Even today we have a few candidates remaining for that gap between dead and alive ranging from clay surfaces and self replicating molecules to prions and viruses. You are looking for the abiogenesis equivalent of a crocaduck, something no one claims existed but whose absence the foolish will cite as proof that it never existed ... very strange.
It is amazing I think, that there are scientists, who pretty much jeopardize their career, to say things which divine wisdom has been saying for years. So, so interesting that it would though. Enlightenment new that the universe had a beginning before science; it spoke of many worlds and universes before science, and now it sees the consciousness of all things before science. Day by day they seem to be catching up.... but boy do they need a big paradigm change. It is prehistoric scientists that hold it all back, the old guard, who hold on to their comforting thoughts, lest their lives have been a waste.
I think we've already discussed the propensity of some physicists and mathematicians to go round the bend after their most productive years are over.
Calling the portion of our intelligentsia that is best equipped to deal with continuous change "Prehistoric" while you cloak yourself in bronze age ignorance would be funny where it not such a tragic loss of human potential.
It is truly complex, and there is no denying that. The so called processes and mechanisms that are said to bring about so many things ( a sort of artificial intelligence) is fine as an explanation, and largely proved, but where and how do those processes arise in the first place. Ultimately we have to conclude that luck is the answer of the atheist, even though they do not like to accept it.
Chance alone is not going to bring about anything, you are right.
Chance, luck, whatever you want to call it is your hobgoblin strawman ... not mine.
What I've said has nothing to do with what I may know or not know. It has to do with observing the methodology of science itself, which is basically dissection, the assumption being that a critical piece of 'the puzzle' will at last be found and everything will just fall into place. It also assumes the universe to be merely a collection of dead material things in the manner of a machine. One cannot find the music by dismantling the piano. The music can only be found by listening. In the same manner, we cannot know the true nature of Reality by attempting to reduce it to its smallest denominations as 'parts' ala machine. That will only yield factual information, but tells us nothing. This should be obvious to anyone with a lick of intelligence.
It should be obvious to anyone with a lick of intelligence that the scientific method has many tools and approaches. If you think that discetion is all that there is, that simple reveals your lack of knowledge concering and your experieince with science and the scientific method. You have proven yourself unqualified to comment on the subject.
You want to pin down rationally what does not operate within the realm of Reason. This is not avoidance, but redirection of one's attention. As I said, the spiritual experience is just that. Sure, people have experiences all the time, and many are delusional. But remember that delusion is the product of thought, and the spiritual experience is not one of the thinking mind, but of the seeing mind. That is to say, it is an experience transcendent of perceptual reality. It is beyond sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste, all of which can deceive. Bottom line, though, is that it can be verified, but not via factual proof. You have to go see for yourself. But what I originally said to you, that that which is observing is the spiritual. It's not an object somewhere 'out there'. It is unconditioned consciousness, which everyone has, but only becomes apparent to them when the chatter of the discriminating mind is quieted down.
"Rationally what (sic) does not operate within the realm of Reason" You are kidding ... right? You think that sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste, can be deceptive yet believe your own internal and quite possibly delusional mental state?
['It appears without intelligence involved in creation, we have no right to expect anything positively happening at all."]
Probability is so not on the side of those who believe in evolution without intelligent design, that time is a totally moot ally of theirs.
The question many of us have is simple: How can anybody believe life could come into its own amazingly complex and beautifully ordered stage without intelligent design?
That's just an argument from ignorance.
No one doubts for a second that the Mona Lisa could assemble itself without a creator, and they have no need to have seen its creation to believe that.
Your analogy is badly flawed and, in any case, represents naught but a strawman of your own creation.
Yet, a human cell with a thousand machines inside all occurring by random molecular rendezvous???
Again your analogy is badly flawed and, in any case, represents naught but a strawman of your own creation.
Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
“The illusion of design,” Richard? . . . (sigh)
Been slaving in the quote mine long? Probably not since you don't even do that well. BTW: Atheists don't have priests, high or low.
The piano and the music!! I like that! That to me sums up atheists. They take on the scientific approach, thinking it will answer all things, dismantling the piano, only to claim there is no cuh thing as music... haha.. Good!
Your analogy is badly flawed, one again a strawman of your own creation. You seem to forget that is is the scientists who know how to design and construct the piano as well as write and play the music, those of you with nothing but bronze age tools at your disposal are limited to just playing "Fiddlesticks."
It's always been present cyclically and complete, but in two phases: on and off. It has no need to reproduce as it already is Everything. It is Absolute. And because it is Everything, it includes intelligence. In fact, it is Intelligence itself, manifesting itself as the Universe. To you, that may sound like an extraordinary claim, but from the standpoint of the universe, it's Nothing Special, simply because Everything is intelligent, so there's nothing relative to compare it to. For some strange reason, man, with a straight face, wants to set himself apart as intelligent from what he thinks is a dead universe, a universe he came out of and which supports him both inside and out to the tune of 100%.
The very methodology of science is such that it cannot but fail to find the true nature of Reality. What is on the table is that it has not succeeded in doing so even after hundreds of years of effort. What it has done, as valuable as it is, is to provide man with factual knowledge, but factual knowledge is not what the nature of Reality actually is. We do have, however, tens of thousands of mystics who, throughout the ages and in different places around the world, have arrived at the same conclusions about the nature of Reality independent of one another. What this points to is that the source of their understanding is the same everywhere. Why should it be any different? On the other hand, science has only succeeded in producing inconclusive multiple theories, not about the nature of Reality, but only about its mechanics.
More on your post later....
So you think that non-factual knowledge is what the nature of Reality actually is? Give us a break, take a deep breath and rethink what you just plopped face down into.
Factual information that tells us nothing? Are you trying to be serious? Heaven forbid that facts intrude on your thinking, LOL. Oddly, we have learned a great deal about the true nature of reality by "dissecting" it. We are currently exploring reality from many different angles and to pretend that those meaningful investigations will tell us "nothing" is absurdity on steroids.
Since I applauded the sentiment that "we don't know" is a contraction of "we don't know yet" I've thought that there is the additional possibility that we will never really know. You seem to be beyond this realization already as you are prone to dismiss this type of knowledge even though the scientific exploration allows you to communicate your thoughts to a world-wide audience - some of whom seem to think you have a point.
My own perception is that if our fellow human animals followed thinking like yours we would still be in caves trembling in fear during solar eclipses.
Hear! Hear!
Instead, we tremble in fear at the altar of Holy Science and Technology in bed with Almighty Dollar, while watching dancing shadows on the walls of Science's Cave, never going topside to view the glorious Sun.
There is no alter of Holy Science and Technology, no one asks us to tremble or be fearful, those are all concepts of religionists that atheist reject, and no misplaced allusion to Plato (something any decently educated middle school student might use) is going to change that.
I should have guessed, in spite of your fake advertisement of 'Bodhisattava' (*cough*), that you lack enough intuition to connect dots, namely that the nothing of factual knowledge refers to the nature of Reality. So c'mon! I want you to tell me just one thing we have learned about the nature of Reality via science. Maybe you think that facts are reality. They're not. Facts are what you get when you nibble around the edges of Reality, are about Reality, but are not themselves Reality, Reality being beyond mere facts.
Reality is the building, facts are the bricks and mortar, without the facts your are building with only cards, without science to provide the mortar, the best you can do is to dry fit cards together ... no much of a structure.
