That's an understatement. You are convinced that it could not. You've chosen to believe the opposite by faith. Why would that be of interest to a critical thinker, who decides what the evidence means AFTER reviewing it? You decided before looking at it and so haven't developed the necessary skills to determine what that evidence implies, because such skills have no value to you even though they're the very skills you use to determine what's true about, say, the restaurants in your area. You decide which ones you consider close, have good parking, good food, good prices, good service, and good ambiance empirically, that is, you examine the evidence and THEN generate a useful induction from it that relatively accurately predicts future experience. But elsewhere, as with your religious beliefs, you don't do that. Belief precedes evidence.
Those are thoughts? They say nothing to me except that whatever you're looking at, you call thought, life and God.
That's a thought. That's the metaphysical position called idealism, namely, that mind is the fundamental reality and the origin of the rest of reality.
This is a claim of fact, and already falsified.
If you're thinking, you're doing it in time. Thought implies a transition of a mental state from a before state to an after state.
It's you in the cult. It's called supernaturalism, and you're offended at having soft thinking rejected, so you attack rigorous thought. Sorry, but that's never going to change however insecure you are about that kind of thinking being rejected or however often you feel a need to insult others. Why is that? Why do you have an emotional reaction to being disagreed with? Does it make you feel insecure that others are comfortable without god beliefs or religions?
Yes. Unjustified belief is always a logical error. Believing that naturalistic abiogenesis or intelligent design may account for the first life requires no faith. One of those two, it seems, MUST be the case, and remaining agnostic about it the only sound position possible
Yes, but not equally possible. The naturalistic hypothesis only requires that it be possible for the ingredients of life, which we know exist naturally, to arrange themselves according to the same natural laws that build new life every day in living cells as they grow and divide. The supernaturalistic one requires the existence of an entire other reality inhabited by a god, making it much less parsimonious a hypothesis than naturalistic ones.
This is your bias speaking. I can order those two logical possibilities. The supernaturalistic one is less likely to be correct.
What "god"? Where? I can show you matter obeying the laws of nature organizing itself into life every day, but gods are nowhere to be found.
But do you know what IS as plausible as a god doing it? A vampire doing it, or Spiderman doing it. They're also MIA.
You want to call the laws of nature a god? Why? They already have a name that carries no baggage: the laws of nature.
Unjustified belief is always a logical error, a non sequitur, since it doesn't proceed from any preceding evidence or valid argument.
You probably know what artificial means.
It is very likely that naturalistic abiogenesis is correct.
And do you know who else thinks so? Thousands of scientists devoting their lives to unraveling that mystery, and millions of research dollars allocated to support that research. It turns out that the opinion that gods did it is what has no value. Like astrology, it explains nothing and predicts nothing. That meets my definition of a worthless idea.
Yes, it did. The order appears to be that matter arranged itself into our solar system (material evolution) from an initial hot, dense state, then life evolved from nonlife (chemical evolution or abiogenesis), then complex animal life with brains (biological evolution) and consciousness (psychological evolution) appeared, then intellect evolved in the hominin branch of the great apes (additional biological and psychological evolution), followed by symbolic thought and science (cultural evolution).
But that's not the claim. The claim is that life MIGHT have arisen spontaneously absent intelligent oversight. I'd go further and say probably happened and probably happens everywhere where conditions support chemical evolution as it true with all physical processes. Things fall whenever the conditions are right. Ice melts whenever the conditions are right. Solar systems and galaxies form whenever possible as best we can tell. Why would this be different?
You've described additional cultural evolution. That pretty good evidence that they are man's creation.
Not even. It's a hypothesis. But it is a much more robust hypothesis than say string theory or the multiverse, which are purely theoretical, both of which are more robust than god hypotheses.
Last edited:
