There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[SkepticThinker]

The chemicals didn't create themselves. And since it can't be replicated, the other options are not more feasible or scientific than God doing it.

They're not? When did you calculate the probability that the specific God you believe in created the universe? When did you demonstrate it is even an option worth considering?

 

[Wildswanderer]

They may give lip service to God in these moments, but they are having the same experience as atheists doing the same things without a god belief. These are the things that actually give life the meaning it has, not hope, and you share in that.

God created nature. Of course I enjoy what God created. Without him it would just be another pointless accident. Fortunately, nature gives evidence for a designer and artist to the one who chooses to believe in the artist.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm going to ignore the fact that you moved the goal posts here and say yes. You know what happens when a sperm and an egg come together, right?

I didn't move anything. We aren't talking about combining an alkaline and a acid to get a reaction, we are talking about life. And the sperm and eggs come from already existing life forms.

 

[Polymath257]

The chemicals didn't create themselves. And since it can't be replicated, the other options are not more feasible or scientific than God doing it.

The formation of the chemicals is irrelevant for abiogenesis. We are considering the chemicals that existed on Earth already.

Where the Earth and those chemicals came from is irrelevant to abiogenesis. It is an interesting question, but just no *that* question.

So, no, it is certainly NOT the most feasible answer in this case. The violation of the conservation laws makes it *completely* unscientific. That is a basic physical law.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't move anything. We aren't talking about combining an alkaline and a acid to get a reaction, we are talking about life. And the sperm and eggs come from already existing life forms.

And what is it, precisely, that makes them alive?

 

[Polymath257]

You just refuse to acknowledge what is obvious to everyone else. It's not happening with the natural laws we have now, so you are claiming something that isn't observable... something outside of what science can show evidence for.

But it *is* happening. We have made far more progress on this than anyone would have suspected 100 years ago. We know that life obeys the same laws of chemistry and physics as everything else.

The question is organization, not anything more basic. There is no physical law that says things cannot be organized that way, nor that they cannot *become* organized that way. And, in fact, we have observed much more self-organization than anyone would have imagined not that long ago.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you expecting others to believe that you would suddenly take an interest in evolution if the abiogenesis pathway were worked out? You don't care about evolution or abiogenesis except to undermine them and substitute creationism.

Here's what I find extremely amusing about all this: you are trying to convince me to believe in miracles.
1. Something that I can't observe happening. 2. Something that we have never observed happening naturally in the world. 3. You believe it because it fits into your belief system. 4. You accept it only by faith because you cannot possibly observe it. If you will not accept my miracles why would I accept yours?

But I'm not trying to convince you of anything except that you are not presenting the face you think you are here. I understand the futility of even that. You ignored the comment last time, and would be expected to do so every time.

Nor would I want to undermine your belief in God if I could. That would be cruel if you couldn't adapt to life without gods and religion. It would leave you lost and disoriented after a lifetime as a theist. It's a transition I encourage in younger people, who have enough life and neuroplasticity left to adapt and benefit from the adaptation as I did, but there are diminishing returns there with aging.

Besides practicing writing skills and constructing cogent arguments, what I am doing is showing you how I view the world and process information, and also, like everybody else here you're disagreeing with, sharing some insights that might be of interest or value to others making similar arguments.

There is good evidence that life arises spontaneously wherever condition necessary to support it exist.

Then we should be able to observe it happening in nature.

You probably can. Find a rocky planet or moon with no life on it that has oceans and relative environmental stability, and watch for a few million years. Good answer, don't you think?

What we can observe is life from life... never life from non life.

I guess that means that you don't have a rocket ship and a few millions years to observe abiogenesis. With those you could expect to see life arising de novo.

Here's another useful tool for those dealing with creationists denying that life can exist without previous life: You also believe in life coming from nonlife, whether you consider God living or not. If God is alive t you, then God is life that didn't come from other life. If life means existing in a body and God is mind but not life to you, then the act of creation would be life coming from nonlife.

When I observe life coming from non life in nature with no interference from man then I'll believe it.

Do you think that that is believable to those to whom you posted it? You might believe that you are receptive to evidence and are willing and able to evaluate it dispassionately, but you don't do that when your god belief is challenged. That's what the faith-based confirmation bias does for the believer. It defends faith-based beliefs from contradictory evidence. I assume that if you saw life arising from nonlife that you would see that as evidence for creationism. You would undoubtedly credit an unseen intelligent designer as you already do.

you are so dead set against God You wouldn't believe in him if he comes down and eats breakfast with you.

Show me a god and I'll believe that I saw something. Have it generate a universe, and I'll believe that it is an superhuman intelligent designer that might have generated our universe, but I don't know of anything that could rule out that it was an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence of natural origin.

No, you're describing the faith-based thinker like the one cited below, who wouldn't believe he witnessed abiogenesis if he witnessed it because he believes by faith that that is impossible and is impervious to evidence that contradicts his beliefs. Which one of these people is impervious to evidence? Let him tell you so in his own words:

The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked them, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." Elsewhere, Ham stated, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Did you look at what I posted about confirmation bias from a Christian that somehow escaped from one without leaving Christianity, which, like that illustration of how faith closes a mind, I also find to be a powerful tool when addressing creationists? What would you say to this guy? :

"One of my favorite resources on the topic [of confirmation bias] comes from a young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist, Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist as he studied geology. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 Confirmation bias isn't hard to spot. It's evident whenever you read somebody writing things like there is no contradiction in the Bible or biblical prophecy is evidence of divine prescience. You look at what they look at and go, "Huh?" You see it in the election hoax believers and the antivaxxers. They simply don't see evidence, and Morton's Demon is why."​

Morton's demon is strong in Ken Ham. How about you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't move anything. We aren't talking about combining an alkaline and a acid to get a reaction, we are talking about life. And the sperm and eggs come from already existing life forms.

So? That's another attempt to move the goal posts.

We were talking about observing how chemicals come together naturally all the time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it *is* happening. We have made far more progress on this than anyone would have suspected 100 years ago. We know that life obeys the same laws of chemistry and physics as everything else.

The question is organization, not anything more basic. There is no physical law that says things cannot be organized that way, nor that they cannot *become* organized that way. And, in fact, we have observed much more self-organization than anyone would have imagined not that long ago.

No, it doesn't in the strong sense. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Polymath257]

No, it doesn't in the strong sense. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

? I fail to see the relevance to what I wrote.

I agree that science does not deal with morality, aesthetics, etc. So?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

? I fail to see the relevance to what I wrote.

I agree that science does not deal with morality, aesthetics, etc. So?

But is it natural? Or is it a case of ontological dualism? Or what?

 

[Polymath257]

But is it natural? Or is it a case of ontological dualism? Or what?

Is *what* natural? Aesthetics?

Aesthetics is one type of judgement humans make. I don't see it as an ontological question at all.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But it *is* happening.

Right now life is forming from non living material in the natural world?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So?

So life from life is observable every day. Big deal. That's not the question.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You probably can. Find a rocky planet or moon with no life on it that has oceans and relative environmental stability, and watch for a few million years. Good answer, don't you think?

Actually no. Because we haven't observed life anywhere else.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I guess that means that you don't have a rocket ship and a few millions years to observe abiogenesis.

Why should it take millions of years? Is it going to take that long in the Lab?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Show me a god and I'll believe that I saw something. Have it generate a universe, and I'll believe that it is an superhuman intelligent designer that might have generated our universe, but I don't know of anything that could rule out that it was an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence of natural origin.

Who has a closed mind? Depends where you are standing. Yours look very closed from where I'm standing.

 

[Polymath257]

Right now life is forming from non living material in the natural world?

Yes.

For example, the food you eat is not currently alive. It will be part of your living body soon, though.

So it went from being 'not alive' to being 'alive'.

Plants take nonliving matter from the soil and nonliving light and turn them into the living plant.

The question isn't whether non-life can turn into life. The question is whether it is possible without the intervention of something living.

Bonus question: at exactly what stage did the food you eat become alive again?

 

[Polymath257]

Actually no. Because we haven't observed life anywhere else.

So do you think it *only* exists on Earth? Or have we simply not detected it other places yet?

 

[Polymath257]

So life from life is observable every day. Big deal. That's not the question.

And non-living matter is converted into living matter every day.