**UPDATED 07/05/2015 – See below
Many Christians don’t have a clue about Christianity.
But ‘religious people’ don’t have the ignorance market cornered.
You ‘godless people’ don’t do any better when it comes to explaining yourselves.
It frustrates me.
I’m wanting to know the truth.
Non-theists claim to have it, yet…
…are often annoyed when asked to present it.
Ravi Zacharias says:
A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands or scarcity of evidence but because of a moral resistance…
I’m pretty sure that quote is reason to cry, ‘False’ .
There’s no evidence for God.
There’s no intellectual purpose for God.
Religion ruins everything.
Is that right?
…can you PROVE it?
Let’s play a game!
Over the course of the next few weeks…
On Saturdays, the Comedy Sojourn will become
“Saturday School”
I’m going to dedicate this blog to asking some questions.
Will you answer them?
I’ll confess this right up front…
…these are tough questions for me.
They are questions that I can’t answer without invoking the supernatural.
Clinging to superstition grates on me.
I’m eager to embrace more intellectual hypotheses.
So I’m not going to tolerate answers that require ‘faith’.
I already have faith.
I’m wanting to replace faith with rationality.
I’m looking for hard, empirical, scientific reason.
Are you up to the task?
Can you lead me out of Christianity?
Here’s the first question:
Can you give an example of life arising spontaneously from non-life? If not, how do you think life came to exist on Earth?
** UPDATE **
The term ‘Abiogenesis’ has been introduced into the discussion.
Abiogenesis is the word given to the phenomena of life arising from non-life.
For reasons that are obvious to most of you…
…I won’t accept abiogenesis as an example of abiogenesis.
106 Responses
I honestly can’t stop laughing at the fools (with all due respect) that think “abiogenesis” is an answer to the question posed. The question was to give an example of what you call “abiogenesis” actually occurring. No one to this point has done so. Just a bunch of people saying “abiogenesis” is an example of abiogenesis.
These are the same folks who tell you “Well God did it that way” is anti-intellectual. They don’t seem to realize that with no evidence for “abiogenesis,” no singular example of it ever happening, no observable data to even begin to suggest it is possible, and the reality that “abiogenesis” contradicts the very laws of science they falsely claim to revere, that “abiogenesis” has become their “god.”
I love the circular reasoning:
A: How did life arise from non-life?
B: Abiogenesis.
A: Yes, how did that happen?
B: Life arose from non-life.
A: Right, but can you prove that it happened that way?
B: It had to.
A: Why?
B: Because there used to be no life, now there is, so it had to happen that way.
All hail the sanctity of science!
Look jack-wagons, “abiogenesis” is a term of faith applied to the unanswered question of how life arose from non-life in the Darwinian model. The question John is asking is “can you give an example of this happening.” SAYING “ABIOGENESIS” IS NOT GIVING AN EXAMPLE OF ABIOGENESIS. Some might say it is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalala can’t hear you.” Give a freaking example of abiogenesis.
I appreciate your thoughts and you are correct in your assessment of what is happening here. But kindly refrain from referring to people as ‘jack-wagons’. As you know, that will derail the discussion. The rebuttals will now be nothing more than admonitions about how ‘unChristian’ it is to call names. Non-Christians will embrace New Testament doctrine with astounding speed when it suits their narrative and I’m reluctant to give them any opportunity for doing so.
Perhaps I should have gone with brood of vipers or whitewashed tombs? I want to keep it Christian after all…
The question was already answered, bub. Why would I repeat the answer when you already did the equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears and saying “lalala, I can’t hear you!!!”?
Nothing more to contribute to this topic for anyone, in terms of the question you posed. But you already knew that. Thanks.
Thanks for the contribution, Jeffrey. Your insight is exceeded only by your manners.
*posts series of sentence fragments*
*asks question that he thought couldn’t be answered*
*gets answer immediately*
*doesn’t like answer to question that he thought couldn’t be answered*
*decides to exclude that correct answer as a possible answer to the question*
*updates series of sentence fragments in blog to reflect the new rule*
*lectures about manners*
*places asterisks on either side of his own sentence fragments*
*makes no attempt to answer questions posed*
*doesn’t acknowledge author’s acceptance of answers given*
*accuses author of doing stuff he didn’t do*
I need to know whether or not I can ignore future posts. Do you have something on topic to contribute or are you just going to make personal attacks?
This is hilarious. You got schooled and are so butt hurt about it. Nice one-line blogs, too, dipshit.
Jeffrey, if you would like to get “educated” (a.k.a. schooled) then feel free to read some of my posts in this thread.
“Can you give an example of life arising spontaneously from non-life? If not, how do you think life came to exist on Earth?”
We cannot give a direct example of a cell arising from chemicals – yet. This is thought to be a very complex biochemical process, and the main evidence we have of this is the fact that we have been able to create animo acids, sugars, and one of the four nucleotide bases of DNA. The chemical combination and energy needed is still unknown, but we are making progress.
Abiogenesis is far from complete, but it is both likely based on the fact that we have generated ‘bits’ of life from ‘non-life’, and the fact that we are all basically a complex biochemical process.
I hope that answered your question.
I believe you have answered the questions as follows:
Can you give an example of abiogenesis presently occurring? – “No”
How do you think life came to exist on Earth? – “Abiogenesis”
Am I correct?
Pretty much, yes.
Abiogenesis has not been replicated in a lab, however there is evidence to suggest that it could definitely happen. We cannot see abiogenesis working in the wild today because the conditions are not right for it to happen, the gases and chemicals that were present on the primordial earth are no longer around today – or at least not in large quantities.
But we don’t need to see something presently occurring – or even be capable of making it happen – to prove it. Science is not about literally observing everything, if that was the case then why accept the big bang? Or even dinosaurs?
Thank you.
I agree with your summary and appreciate the clarification.
I especially appreciate the comment, ‘Science is not about literally observing everything’. In the past, I’ve had some difficulty establishing that with some of my fellow interlocutors.
To your point below, “Science is not about literally observing everything, if that was the case then why accept the big bang?” A couple of things to note. #1 – You are changing the literal definition of science by trying to say that it is not about observation. (Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment)
#2 – Not everyone accepts the Big Bang THEORY, because…it’s not observable. Therefore, one can only BELIEVE in a theory. This falls in to the category of philosophy. (Philosophy: the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge.)
#3 – Can you please reference the study where someone was able to synthesize an amino acid from random elements? Did they start with just plain hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen (which don’t even exist in a common physical state under “normal conditions”) or did they start with pre-built sugars and other compounds that make up an amino acid?
1. We don’t have to physically observe everything in science to prove it, as Bill Nye once said, it’s kind of like detective work – we look at the evidence we have in the present to make conclusions about the past and predictions about the future.
2. Including the word ‘theory’ was really quite unnecessary, it does not reduce the credibility of the big bang. In science, a theory is a model used to explain something that is supported by evidence, not just a hunch.
In some aspects you have to have ‘faith’ in a theory, but this is not religious faith. Religious faith is defined as ‘belief without evidence’ ,whereas in science we have faith in the scientific method, this kind of faith is defined as ‘trust’. We have trust in the scientific method, we don’t believe in it without evidence.
3. I have not heard of this experiment, but I assume that it was not an accurate ‘reenactment’ of the primordial earth and how things are thought to have formed. Potholer 54 on YouTube has an interesting video o abiogenesis, mainly focusing on how it is thought to have worked.
@mclasper – We have to agree upon our terms to have a cogent discussion. I simply provided the dictionary definition of SCIENCE, and you wish to add to or change it, to say it does not necessarily require observation.
I have a degree in Biology. I am familiar with the Scientific Method. I also know the distinctions between hypothesis, theory and scientific law. A scientific law is something that can be clearly demonstrated over and over, under defined conditions. However, theories make assumptions (a.k.a. beliefs, educated guesses) but they are not definitive. Even our current understanding of how atoms work with protons, neutrons and electrons is called “atomic theory” because we cannot truly observe what is happening at the sub-atomic level. We can only construct models and make some assumptions based on what we can observe. It takes some FAITH.
You are the one who originally said, “based on the fact that we have generated ‘bits’ of life from ‘non-life’…” and then when I ask for details of these experiments you say, “I have not heard of this experiment, but I assume that it was not an accurate ‘reenactment’ of the primordial earth…” You have FAITH that such an experiment exists. In fact, you even used the words, “I assume”–a faith statement.
You have faith in Bill Nye. I have faith in God.
Making a distinction between faith, trust and belief seems like a self-defeating proposition. These are all words that mean the same thing.
In my “religious faith” we have a saying, “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” There is additional EVIDENCE for the position of faith in God, but you have to be willing to examine it.
If you like interesting YouTube videos on the this subject, maybe check out Ravi Zacharias. I will try to watch the one by Potholer 54.
Remember that the faith required is not religious faith, meaning that we do not have ‘belief without evidence’ in the big bang or the atomic theory.
Faith has two definitions:
complete trust or confidence in someone or something – This is the faith people have in science and scientific theories
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. – this is faith in God and religion.
I do not recall you asking for details of abiogenesis experiments, in your last comment you simply said something about one particular experiment – and the name of the study is not provided.
The most common experiments on abiogenesis are the Millar-Urey experiments, but keep in mind that they are somewhat outdated.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Is belief in abiogensis ‘religious faith’ or is there a scientific proof (besides, ‘here we are’) to substantiate it?
As a side note, for whatever it’s worth, science has done with Urey-Miller what Science always does…tested it: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html
The RationalWiki link mentions that the experiment is mostly discounted but continues to assert that it demonstrated that “the basic building blocks of life could form spontaneously in nature without intelligent intervention”. It would seem to me that the Miller-Urey experiment required quite a bit of intelligent intervention to setup.
mclasper, I had hoped you’d referred to the Miller-Urey experiment as this illustrates precisely how little people research and understand the research that supports the theories upon which they based their world views. A cursory internet search will provide you with a great deal of objective information about this experiment and the dozens of flaws associated with conditions created and the outcomes produced. I’ll summarize just a few of them:
– the majority product of their experiment was formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide–not exactly life friendly elements; if the conditions existed according to the hypothesis of this experiement any “life producing” molecules or if, heaven forbid, a protein were to come together, would be well preserved but would never progress to form the necessary tertiary and quarternary structures required of complex proteins.
– the experiment also makes a huge, unverifiable assumption that the earth had a reducing atmosphere and not an oxidizing one as it currently exists.
– this also leads to an important point that I learned at the museum of natural history, if there’s no ozone in the atmosphere the UV rays from the sun would kill all life (in fact we use UV today to sterilize things), and yet the assumption is that plant and bacteria life created the necessary oxygen and subsequent ozone to create the atmosphere we have today. How does that make sense?
– Back to Miller and Urey – the amino acids required in the building blocks of protein are required to be of the levo (left-handed) variety. The experiment produced a 50/50 mix of left and right-handed versions of these molecules. Might seem like no big deal, because you’d say that, “Hey, the right type were there. But so were a bunch of the wrong type, which means there’s be just as much chance–in face a 100% chance that some of the wrong type would be assimilated in to a group of amino acids trying trying to get together to form a protein. And let’s just say, you were lucky enough to get a protein, with a 50/50 mix of right and left handed amino acids, it would not be able to create the type of tertiary and quarternary structures required to create the complex proteins of life.
I could go on, but you can research this for yourself if you want to. I know that that evolutionists will not point out any of these problems with the results of the experiment. They will simply take some of the results out of context of the entire experiement and fill in the gaps with additional assumptions and more theories. Being able to produce an amino acid in an artificial environment is a long way from producing a living, air-breathing, morally conscious, self-aware being.
And by the way, if Miller and Urey’s experiment was so sound in it’s results, why hasn’t anyone else of any scientific significance, in the past 65 years reconstructed these experiments to solve for the problems created by their results? Why does this old, flawed, experiment continue to get referenced like chapter one in “Bible of evolutionary theory.” It’s like continuing to reference Copernicus after Kepler has been around for 65 years.
The experiment is very old, and granted, it isn’t a very accurate account of the primordial earth. However it is the most famous experiment, so provides a useful example of how animo acids and other organic molocules could be generated.
http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/cheme.htm
When you get down to it, abiogenesis is still more of a hypothesis than anything, but it is the only scientific explanation of how life could have originated, and it is still far better than assuming that a magical being did it.
Regardless of that, abiogenesis has some evidence for it, mainly in the forms of the formation of organic compounds from chemical matter, however finding the right mix of gases and chemicals to make an accurate ‘reenactment’ of the origin of life is difficult.
How is abiogenesis different from ‘magic’?
Definition of ‘magic’:
1.
the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring:
to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2.
the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of
nature.
Abiogenesis is just a complex biochemical process. Certain chemicals combine to form the building blocks of life; these building blocks form basic RNA, which forms basic DNA, which forms cells; then evolution kicks in and life gets more complex.
Abiogenesis is in no way supernatural or mystical. It is also not magic. A supernatural being just ‘creating’ life IS magic, however.
Abiogeneis is a ‘complex biochemical process’ that is completely hypothetical. We’ve already agreed that there is no example of it happening in the known universe. Why do you get to claim that it’s not mystical?
Actually a supernatural being creating life is not magical at all. We see life coming from beings all the time. In fact, there is ONLY evidence for life coming from life. There is no evidence for life coming from non-life. I’ll grant you that a supernatural being is a fantastic claim but what makes it more outrageous than abiogenesis?
The building blocks of life have been created in labs from non-living matter; animo acids, sugars, and chemicals like Urea were one only thought to exist within life, however they have ‘created themselves’ from chemicals. This is evidence that these building blocks could become more complex and form RNA,
Amino acids, sugars and Urea are not living things. They are, as you said, merely building blocks. You wouldn’t find a few bricks and exclaim, “they could become more complex and form a house”.
Yes, except that bricks are not organic, they do not form biochemical bonds, and they do not form structures on their own. Animo acids and other building blocks can combine to form more complex structures. This video by potholer54 might explain a few things about abiogenesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
I understand that there is an organic difference between bricks and living cells. My point is that even an object as simple as a brick requires an explanation for existence. You would not find a brick (or vase or arrowhead) and assume that it somehow formed itself.
Yet, the video link describes abiogenesis as a long, unguided, evolutionary process whereby inorganic chemicals assemble themselves into living cells. The video seems somewhat offended by the question, “How did these inorganic chemicals get so smart?” But it’s a good question.
You’d be curious if you saw bricks assemble themselves into a house. Are you not curious about how amino acids form themselves into life?
It does not take intelligence for chemicals like ammonia and hydrogen cyanide to combine and produce more complex chemicals. Likewise sodium and chlorine don’t have to be ‘smart’ to form sodium chloride (table salt).
If you are talking about real intelligence, such as the question “if we came from chemicals, why are we intelligent”, then that is completely different and is explained by evolution and what ‘intelligence’ actually is.
If bricks assembled themselves into a structure, then yes, it would be remarkable and difficult to believe, however there are two things I must point out:
1. what classes as a ‘house’ in this case? Or more appropriately, a ‘structure’? Rocks and bricks seem to form complex natural structures like caves or rock formations all the time. This is no different to them forming a house.
2. It would be easy to believe that these bricks assembled themselves into a house if A. the bricks were formed formed simple chemicals, B. the bricks could replicate themselves, and C. the bricks had the ability to assemble themselves into complex structures.
Chemicals combining to produce ‘more complex’ chemicals is nothing like chemicals combining to come to life. Accepting that premise is still an act of faith…just like belief in God.
I think we can agree that cave formations are not the same as ‘houses’ and I’m concerned that this discussion will devolve into bickering about definitions at this point.
I think you understand what I’m asking. Why are you willing to accept ‘living, thinking bricks’ but reject the notion of ‘living, thinking brick maker’?
Actually it is. These complex chemicals, like the nucleotide bases of DNA, could become more complex to form polynuleotides, which can then form RNA. After that it is just a matter of time before they evolve into DNA and the first primitive cells.
I am more inclined to accept abiogenesis over a divine creator for two reasons,
1. It is currently a well supported theory and is the only one of it’s kind. No-one else has proposed such a method.
2. If you accept a creator, then this brings up many, many more questions, such as ‘how did he/she/it do it?’, ‘what is the divine creator?’, ‘how was this creator created?’, and ‘why is there no evidence of this creator?’. It complicates things a huge amount. Furthermore, there is no way to tell if such a creator exists, and who/what it is.
Your description of abiogenesis sort of makes it sound like a souffle recipe. “Some milk and flour together form a paste. From there, it’s just a matter of time and heat before the mixture rises into a bowl of deliciousness.” You are leaving out a lot of detail and assuming a lot of disputable details as fact.
I’m curious how you would respond if I sent you a statement like this:
I am more inclined to accept creationism over a abiogenesis for two reasons,
1. It is currently a well supported theory and is the only one of it’s kind. No-one else has proposed such a method.
2. If you accept abiogenesis, then this brings up many, many more questions, such as ‘how specifically does it work?’, ‘what is abiogenesis (a law, a person, a thought?)’, ‘why don’t we see abiogenesis today?’, and ‘why is there no evidence of abiogenesis?’. It complicates things a huge amount. Furthermore, there is no way to tell if abiogenesis happened prehistorically, and who/what it is.
1. Creationism is not a theory and 99% of scientists reject it. There is a good reason that religion is not part of science. Youtubers like potholer54 and thunderf00t have many videos debunking their arguments, not to mention the videos by Logiked and the Armored Skeptic. With a bit of research it is clear why most people disagree wit creationism.
2. the method of how it works is still being looked into, it is not really a complete theory, but it is definitely the best we’ve got.
It is neither of those things. It is a complex biochemical process.
We do not see abiogenesis today because the conditions are not right. The primordial earth had a very different atmosphere and very different chemical makeup than it does today. Furthermore, primitive cells would be wiped out my more complex forms of life if they existed today.
There is plenty of evidence, mainly the formation of amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides. This indicates that the formation of life is possible.
Creationism IS a theory.
I’m skeptical about the 99% of scientists. I think you made up that number.
I could easily list youtubers who have made videos debunking abiogenesis. But what credentials does a person need to put videos on youtube?
I have done ‘a bit of research’ and I’m doubtful about your claim that ‘most people disagree with creationism’. I think you made that up as well.
You have what can only be described as ‘blind faith’ in a theory that you have openly admitted cannot be demonstrated or proven. Insisting that abiogenesis is ‘scientific’ is not accurate. Abiogenesis is a religious claim.
Your arguments have all boiled down to ‘take my word for it’ and ‘it will eventually be understood’.
You cannot be certain of any of your claims: conditions of primordial Earth, evolution of chemical compounds, nature of primitive cells…none of it.
The formation of amino acids, sugars and nucleotides is not evidence of abiogenesis.
In order to have a cogent discussion about your beliefs, you need to acknowledge that you have faith. Some things simply have to be accepted by faith.
When I admit to faith in a Creator and you keep insisting that your every assertion is scientific, hard fact, we can’t have a discussion.
Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense. A theory in science is a model that explains something which is supported by evidence. Creationism is no more a theory than the idea that aliens created the universe.
Well, 93% of the members of the national academy of science are atheists, so a large number of them do not accept creation. Furthermore, most creationist scientists are shunned from the scientific community because, to scientists and most of the world, evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang are indisputable facts. Science has no room for religion, just like geology has no room for the flat earth society.
Look at some polls and you can see that the US and the Middle East are the places that are full of Creationists. Most of the world has grown up out of superstition.
As I have said before, abiogenesis is still an incomplete theory. The fact that organic compounds have been created from chemicals gives the theory some weight. The fact is that abiogenesis is the ONLY scientific theory or idea concerning the origin of life. No other scientist has ever proposed another method. The only other alternative is that a supernatural being somehow ‘made’ everything.
Do not forget that you don’t have to pick ‘creation or science’. Many Christians accept science, but they say that ‘God helped evolution’ or ‘God started the big bang’.
You may find this video series interesting, it is about a Young Earth Creationist who left his faith, and he lists the reasons and arguments for why.
Dear Mr. Branyan,
I was unable to attend the comedy cruise on which you appeared and that was a severe bummer for me because I would love to shake your hand!
I am looking forward to meeting you in a better place someday and will shake your hand vigorously.
Keep on doing what you do so well.
Sincerely, “Fanci”
Consider this a Vigorous Virtual Handshake.
And thanks for the note. We’re planning another cruise in 2017…
why would i want you out of Christianity?
I don’t know how life began neither do you
Humanism (and Atheism) claim to have truth. If they are correct, I will necessarily abandon Christianity because it is untrue. I’m always open to alternative opinions and I’m hoping this series will enlighten me.
Humanism makes the claim that we are capable of solving humanity’s problems. If you think this claim is untrue, you are free to show me why.
Atheism makes no truth claims.
Humanism makes the claim that we are capable of solving humanity’s problems, therefore it is the humanist’s job to support that claim, not mine.
I am curious what the humanist response would be to nine people gunned down in a church during Bible study. How does humanity ‘solve’ that problem on our own?
Also…Atheism claims that God does not exist. Would you consider that a truth claim?
The humanist response is to ask you what god was doing. I mean they were in church, god should have stopped the gun from firing.
Atheism makes no such claim
Do I understand that the humanist answer to tragedy is to inquire as to the whereabouts of an imaginary being?
If atheism makes no truth claims whatsoever then what is the appeal of being an atheist?
You asked me a silly question, you got a silly answer.
Was your original claim that ‘we are capable of solving humanity’s problems ourselves’ supposed to be interpreted as silly? My question was based on that claim.
Also…If atheism makes no truth claims then what is the appeal of being atheist?
the christian thinks he has been commissioned to make idiots of everyone.
I have no such commission. If the only reason you want to become atheist is because I made it look appealing, you are in for a long wait.
Your question was silly.
Have yourself a good day
I’m sorry you’ve misunderstood the question. I didn’t ask, “What does the Christian think he has been commissioned to do?”
I asked you, as a humanist, to explain your original claim. Three times you have refused to do so. And somehow you maintain that I am the one being ‘silly’.
You have not even stated what you believe, let alone why you believe it.
Have yourself a good day as well.
I didn’t misunderstand your question. I have been hoping that you will take time to look at them again and see what you are asking me, but I have been to ambitious it does seem.
It would pain me to think you’ve wasted so much ambition so I’ll try once more:
How would a humanist go about solving the problem of nine innocent people killed in a church during Bible study?
Why be an atheist if atheism makes no truth claims?
John, sorry, I am not going to answer your questions. I find them insincere and silly. Maybe to you they don’t appear that way.
Ok.
Good luck to you in your future efforts to rid the world of the shackles of theism. You’ve got an uphill climb and refusal to explain your alternatives is going to make that hill even steeper.
Fortunately for both of us, the least of my worries is to rid the world of theism. If people believe privately, I am at peace
You need to update your blog to reflect these sentiments.
That is my prerogative, not yours
Thank you, that was my question too.
Quote from earlier:
“We know at one point in time there was no life. Now there is life. That irrefutable timeline allows us to conclude that our existence does in fact prove abiogenesis to be true.”
Please forgive the interruption, but I have a question; how do we know that at one point in time there was no life? This was said to be irrefutable, but I was curious as to how an event that was unobserved could be labeled as such. Was this the result of some inference feom other available data? This is a serious question, by the way; I genuinely want to know.
That’s what I think too, Dwight. But I remain open minded…
Abiogeneis is when people try to use science to prove a predetermined idea and is in fact a theory. Biogenesis is considered a law and is shown to be true through repeated observation. They are antithetical to each other so you either choose to go with a scientific law or a theory that has no observational proof. I think I’ll go with the law.
I still do not understand why their faith in a theory is better than my faith? They have proved nothing and yet act like stating the theory is proof. Round and round they go.
It would seem you are correct. Life spontaneously arising from non-life is ‘Science’. Life arising from an eternal, living source is ‘magic’. So far, nobody has answered my question but that doesn’t mean an answer isn’t forthcoming. We’ll give it some more time.
Yes, time, because scientists state that LOTS of time can change anything. 😉
Well stated!
Just read previous comments. Apparently modern education has taken the masses to a place where the the meaning of words has fallen the way of absolute truth and insults have risen to the top of accepted debate tactics: tower of Babel anyone?
I’ve been accused of not understanding science. I’ve been accused of blindly believing in ‘magic’. I’ve been accused of not allowing people to speak for themselves.
So I’m just going to pose questions.
I hope my atheist friends take this opportunity to dismantle my faith because if the ‘no God’ hypothesis is true, I need to change my lifestyle ASAP.
Count me in! If indeed they can prove this is really all the life we have. 😉
The first sentence sums up why our country is tanking right now. Numbers greed and music wars have dumbed the masses down to cluelessness beyond belief. Can’t wait for Saturday School to begin!
Agree that science isn’t faith. I didn’t say it was. Science states facts. Demonstrable facts. My frustration level has nothing to do with scientific inquiry. So far, your case primarily boils down to, “I don’t believe in hokus pokus, I believe in a theory that life came from non-life and that’s way better.”
So…
Can you prove abiogenesis scientifically or not? If not, how is abiogenesis different from the ‘magic’ you are so fond of ascribing to me?
Abiogenesis is proven by our existence, and that is all the proof we need to be certain that non-living matter (elements from the periodic table) can be arranged in such a manner where life can exist. It seems that the reason for God being invoked is because it seems so wildly difficult to wrap our minds around. There are many things about reality that are difficult to wrap our minds around, but that does not mean they require supernatural explanations. Consider time travel to the future for example. We have proven that it is possible, because we have demonstrably done it. Albeit, the amount of time was insignificant… but nonetheless we have proven it mathematically and confirmed it through real world experimentation. To me, that seems even wilder than the periodic table of elements coming to life during abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis isn’t proven by our existence any more than “God breathed life into matter” is proven by our existence. It’s two ways of saying the same thing.
My question remains, is there a non-theoretical example of abiogenesis that demonstrates life rising from non-life?
We know at one point in time there was no life. Now there is life. That irrefutable timeline allows us to conclude that our existence does in fact prove abiogenesis to be true. It was a one time event just like the Big Bang; therefore we don’t have to reproduce it in order to know that it happened. Saying that “God breathed life into matter” does not say the same thing because it requires an additional assumption to account for God. That additional assumption that you’re inserting into the equation is a very complicated hypothesis that cannot even be tested or observed. Science cannot make any progress if it operated that way.
So the origins of life are a matter of faith, not science.
Mr. Fountain, your logic is circular–as is much of evolutionary theory. You make the assumption that because we are alive that we are here by way of the process of abiogenesis. You’ve offered no evidence of this, only stated a word and assumed that this word has some truth behind it.
Is it safe to assume that you believe we are here as a giant cosmic accident, of elements randomly colliding together to form the universe, the planets, the earth, and all life as we know it? Please note, the key word in that sentance is BELIEVE. You may believe what someone who claims to be a scientist has told you, but have you yourself proved anything? I would debate whether or not someone who purports uncomfirmed theories as facts is a scientist, that sounds like more a philosopher, but we’ll save that for another time.
Beyond the claim that we are here as just a random event of the universe (nevermind where all the elements of that universe came from in the first place) you have not only a science problem to address but also a moral problem. If we are here as just random bags of chemicals floating around and interacting what is our basis for morality–right and wrong? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Good and evil? If not, then we need to remove many words from our vocabulary–like injustice. There is no such thing as injustice if there is no good and evil. We can’t criticize Hitler, Stalin, or police officers who’ve shot unarmed civiliams in the back, because they are just random elements acting with other random elements. But if good and evil exist, where do they come from? Does everyone just get to determine their own or is there a standard that exists outside and apart from us?
Nathan –
Your comment: “nevermind where all the elements of that universe came from in the first place.”
My response: Do you realize that your statement supports that God is not necessary? Take a close look at how you have used the word “from.” You are inferring that all of the matter in this universe was simply in another location before it was here.
Your comment: “If we are here as just random bags of chemicals floating around and interacting what is our basis for morality–right and wrong?”
My response: For matter to exist, morality is not necessary. You seem to be of the position that because matter exists, morality must be a pre-requisite. I cannot see what one has to do with the other. If our universe does not have a creator, it seems illogical to invent one just because we want words like good and evil to actually mean something. If our universe does not have a creator, that does not mean that we must act according to your opinion. Hypothetically, if it were revealed to you that God did not exist, would you continue to treat people the way you would want to be treated? In a universe without a creator, people would eventually learn through trial and error that the best way to not get punched in the face is to not punch other people in the face. It doesn’t take a holy book to learn this… it only takes trial and error. Mutual cooperation would give meaning to words like injustice.
Mr. LF, YOU are inferring quite a bit from my words that I did not say. So let me clarify. You inferred from my statement that “all of the matter in this universe was simply in another location before it was here.” I was not saying this at all. I was posing a quesiton about beginnings. When did matter begin?
Secondly, I am not saying that matter and morality are necessarily related. I would say matter is amoral. That said, would you agree that human being are different from other matter? Even from other animals? I find it fascinating that of all the life on earth, there is only one species that can do what we do. If rocks-to-sentient-being evolution is true, why are there no other beings on the planet with the level of intelligence and development that humans have? And especially if life came from the seas (where currently 94% of all the biomass of all living things exists), where are the great under-sea universities and cities built by some other beings that had far longer to evolve that these lanky bipedal primates on land? Where are the great dolphin cities? Where are the great whale-being poets? Where are the great films and technology created by other primates of the world? Why is there only one species of organism on this planet that can laugh, cry, create art, destroy, educate itself, advance technology, philosophize on it’s own origns, build great cities, mourn for their dead….?
Your only answer can be, “I don’t know why; that’s just the way it is.” However, I offer a cogent explanation.
You propose a theory that it only takes trial and error for us to learn how to mutually cooperate and become a better society. What evidence would you offer to support this? How many genocides and wars will it take for us to learn this? If your theory has any truth, then we should being consistent declines in crime rates over time. Shouldn’t we be at a point of “turning swords in to plowshares and swords in to pruning hooks” by now? Yet, even today there are places where young girls are sold in to slavery as sexual play. There are ruthless dictators who kill their own people. There are corrupt politicians, and FIFA executives. And despites seeing someone go to jail now and these things continue to grow. I’d say you’d be as hard pressed to find an example of the overall improving of human morality throughout time, as you would of abiogenesis. Nice theory with nothing to support it.
Where we come from makes all the difference in the world. The problem I think we face, is that more & more people have been deceived in to believing that there really, ultimately, is no purpose for our existence. We are just space dust. So our purpose is to create better and better space dust?
Purpose and origin are inextricably linked.
When did matter begin? We know when time began, and time depends on matter. Therefore, matter has always existed throughout the spectrum of time.
I would say that life is different from other matter only in that as far as we know, we observe consciousness… and we have no reason to believe that a rock experiences consciousness. My answer is not “I don’t know why, that’s just the way it is.” There are no other life forms on Earth that can do what we can do because every other form of life evolved to be just the way they are. Why should we expect that every branch of life from our most distant ancestors would be as intelligent as we are? Each species is good at doing what they are good at doing… that is why they still exist. Some species are better at climbing trees than we are. Some species are better at swimming than we are. We are better at engineering than other species are. That is why we are building smart phones, and why they are living in trees or in the water. This is precisely what one should expect to see in a universe without a divine creator.
Yes, trial and error teaches us that mutual cooperation is the best method of avoiding harm. You should not interpret that to mean that every last individual on Earth is going to comply. Let’s consider two worlds. Stay with me on a hypothetical basis… since I understand that from your perspective, one of these worlds is not possible. Pretend hypothetically that it is. One world was created by a divine creator with a purpose in mind. The other world (in some alternate universe), exists without a divine creator’s influence. Now… in both worlds, let’s assume there is intelligent life, much like what we see in our world today. Suppose that both worlds have automobiles. Now don’t you suppose that in both worlds, people would learn that the most effective way to avoid getting killed in a car accident is to be mindful of other drivers, share the road with them, not drink and drive, etc.? Yet, even in both of those worlds, I think it would be blatantly obvious that not everyone is going to adhere to mutual cooperation to avoid getting killed in a car accident. People will still drink and drive, drive recklessly, etc. If some people would overlook mutual cooperation while driving vehicles, why don’t you think that they would also overlook it in other ways that lead to political corruption, genocides, etc.?
I think it is far more likely that if our universe was divinely created with a purpose, that we should see something other than what we are seeing in our world today. Going back to my automobile example, we observe life as we do today and to see it align perfectly with what we should expect to see in a universe without a creator. The claim that there is a creator would make that alignment the greatest coincidence ever. Or that claim is just plain false–which seems much more likely than the greatest coincidence ever. If there is no divine creator… our purpose is not to become better space dust. At best, our only purpose is the purpose we give our own lives for the very short period of time we are alive.
It is only a matter of faith to the person who attempts to inject God into the equation. It is a fact that life at one point in time did not exist on Earth. It is also a fact that life now exists. That takes no faith for me to believe. Making it a matter of faith because we don’t know whether God did it undermines the integrity of scientific inquiry. The scientific method should always be consistently applied. Therefore, if we consistently applied your logic to all matters of science, then T-Rex’s existence would also be a matter of faith, not science. Finding T-Rex fossils would not be sufficient to assume that T-Rex actually existed. We would have to keep the door open to the idea that God or Satan planted the fossils there to mess with our heads. Science does not concern itself with God… unless doing so conforms to the scientific method, which it does not.
The scientific method allows for assumptions, but not the kind of assumptions that you speak of. Here is an example of a proper assumption that stands up to the integrity of scientific inquiry. Many theists who don’t believe that evolution really happened hinge their bets on the fact that evolutionary theory does not account for the origin of life. However, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection does not address the origin of life because it makes the verifiable assumption that life did in fact begin. Therefore, evolutionary theory only applies to life evolving from life, not non-life. There is a mountain of integrity in that assumption. There is zero integrity in your assumption that suggests that God must be responsible for something if we cannot replicate or point to another example of it happening. We cannot replicate the Big Bang, nor can we point to another example of it. But we have all the evidence we need to know that it did happen. If you are going to make assumptions about God’s role in science, then before you can make those assumptions, you must first be able to supply verifiable evidence that God exists. Since no one has ever supplied that evidence, any attempt to introduce God into scientific inquiry only serves to pervert the integrity of the process.
I don’t want to get too far afield of the original questions. Evolution is moot until you establish what you believe about life’s origins. I’ve got more questions coming in future posts.
So far the current questions have been answered as follows:
Is there an example of life arising from non-life? – No. There is no such event open to scientific inquiry.
How do you think life came to exist on Earth? – Abiogenesis. Which is the assumption that life spontaneously arose from non-life.
Is that fair?
I don’t believe it is fair to say that the answer to your question is “No” regarding whether there is an example of life arising from non-life. The answer to your question “Is there an example of life arising from non-life?” is a resounding “YES!” We are the example, because there was a time when non-life gave rise to us. I cannot understand why anyone would want to ignore that. Hypothetically, if God did it, then the answer is yes. If God didn’t do it, then the answer is still yes. That event is absolutely open to scientific inquiry, because scientists all the world are researching it as we speak… and they will likely never stop researching it until our species goes extinct.
If we find any form of life, e.g. microbes, during the Europa mission sometime in the next couple decades… would you then believe that life can arise from non-life without God’s intervention? Or would you just assume that God intentionally put those microbes on Europa to mess with us or some other unknown reason?
Thank you for clarifying. I regret the need to be VERY specific in these discussions. History has demonstrated that some people are more interested in picking apart the meaning of words my words than explaining their point of view.
The intention of the question was to establish whether or not abiogenesis can be empirically proven. As in, “Let’s go outside kids, and watch life spring from rocks!”
I agree with you that our existence is proof of abiogenesis.
Would you agree that we both accept this hypothesis as a matter of faith?
I don’t believe it is a matter of faith to acknowledge that we do in fact exist, unless we consider that we might be living in some sort of Matrix software program. If that is the case, then we have all been duped on all levels regarding faith and science. I do suspect that there are different competing hypotheses that attempt to describe precisely all the nuts and bolts that contributed to abiogenesis. So faith might be appropriate if one is to believe that one competing hypothesis is correct over another. Although having faith for a competing hypothesis regarding precisely how abiogenesis occurred doesn’t mean we need faith that abiogenesis occurred.
I am interested in knowing how you might respond if life on Europa is found. Would you believe that God or Satan put that life there to mess with us? Or would you believe that life can arise from non-life without super intelligent intervention?
I’m not referring to our existence being a matter of faith. I’m referring to abiogenesis, or the process by which we came to exist, being a matter of faith since it cannot be observed.
To your question:
Should life on Europa be found, I would assume that life was produced at the same time and via the same process as life on Earth (or any other place in the universe). I don’t think we would need to claim another occurrence of abiogenesis.
I do not attribute organization arising from anything other than intelligence because I’ve yet to be presented with an example of such an event occurring. Wherever there is order, there is intelligence.
How could life have been produced at the same time on Europa as it was on Earth, if Europa and Earth are not the same age? Are you suggesting that some intelligent being relocated life on Earth and place it on Europa? Or vice versa?
I’m not suggesting I know anything about how an intelligent being brought about life on Earth. And there isn’t any life on Europa as far as we know.
If life is discovered anywhere other than Earth, it wouldn’t prove abiogenesis. We’d still be wondering about how it got there. I was giving you the benefit of a doubt by assuming life on Europa was part of the same process that brought about life on Earth. Otherwise, we’d have the extremely unlikely event of abiogenesis happening not once, but TWICE. That would be more difficult to explain, wouldn’t it?
I don’t think it would be correct to assume that life on Europa would be part of the same “instance” of life arising here on Earth. Europa is isolated by vast distance from Earth. While some mathematicians have tried coming up with probability for life arising from non-life, none of those calculations are accepted in the scientific community. It seems safe to appreciate that life coming from non-life is unlikely; but we just don’t know how unlikely yet. The much more difficult thing to explain would be for those who claim that God created all life. They would have to somehow rationalize that God or Satan put life on Europa for some unknown reason. If there were just tiny microbes of life there… does it even seem remotely reasonable to suggest it was placed there by God or Satan, and not from the process of abiogenesis minus a divine creator?
Until it’s proven that life exists on Europa, why spend time theorizing about it’s origins? We already have unexplained life right here on our own planet… 🙂
Good one… that did strike my funny bone 🙂 I think as we inch our way closer to an actual mission to Europa, it will become a more relevant topic of discussion. Life in two places would serve to influence the way many people think about religion, origins, etc. In much the same way that discovering that Earth was not the center of the universe.
Actually, how do you know for sure that there hasn’t always been life on earth? You keep using terms like “verifiable assumption”–kind of sounds like an oxymoron, because if it is verifiable then it’s a fact, not an assumption. By definition an assumption is something that is “accepted as true, without proof.” Please offer observable scientific proof or admit that your world view is based on faith.
You claim that life had to come from non-life, but there’s no current evidence to support this claim, or theories. It’s just as likely, perhaps even more likely, that the earth was seeded with “life” by aliens. I think you could come up with equal amounts of “evidence” to support that theory as you could to support the theory of abiongenesis.
I’m not sure why it’s so difficult for you to admit that your FAITH is in scientific theories. I’m OK if you want to believe that; I’m not mad at you, but don’t try the politicians trick of repeating something over and over again in hopes of making people think it is truth.
Incidentally, do you have any feedback on the idea that our origins and our purpose in life are interrelated?
We can’t know for certain that there was ever a time when life didn’t exist on Earth but it seems reasonable that God wouldn’t have needed to speak life into existence if it was already there.
My issue with our atheist friends is their insistence that belief in God is ‘magical fantasy’ while abiogensis is a sound, scientific theory. I’m still willing to hear them about what makes the idea of God ridiculous in comparison to the suggestion that complex life just appeared from the ether.
I appreciate your contributions, Nathan.
How do I know for sure that there hasn’t always been life on Earth? I’ll play devil’s advocate here for a moment. Let’s assume the Bible is true. Even in that scenario, life has not always existed on Earth. If the Bible is false, I think it would be a silly thing to believe that life existed at the very onset of Earth’s formation. I don’t know there is any scientist with even an ounce of integrity that would subscribe to such a belief… unless there was some evidence to support it.
I am surprised that you would make the statement there is no evidence to suppose the claim that life came from non-life. Let’s consider both scenarios. First scenario – the Bible is true. Life came from non-life, right? Was the dust that God used alive? Or did God bring the dust to life? I suppose you could be clever and say that God is life, therefore life came from life. But scientists do not inject God into their work because that would be an “unsubstantiated assumption.” I am not a scientist by trade, just an enthusiast. So if the term “verifiable assumption” does not sit well with you… perhaps it is the wrong vocabulary to use. I do know that scientists’ vocabulary differs from the general public, For example, when the general public uses the word “theory,” in science that translates to “hypothesis.” So if the term “verifiable assumption” doesn’t sit well with you, I can concede by dropping the “verifiable” part and we can simply call it an “assumption.” Assumptions that scientists make are grounded. As I described previously, if scientists were to assume that God did create life, it would be unsubstantiated because the insertion of God requires a never-ending list of additional assumptions… and it would make for very messy scientific work. The assumption that life did begin is substantiated, regardless of whether God exists or not. It would be equally messy scientific work if scientists made the assumption that God does not exist. But the scientific community would not accept this, because it lacks the integrity that the scientific method demands.
I do have faith in scientific theories… perhaps the same amount of faith that I have that I am alive and not part of a software program—which is an infinitesimally small amount of faith (but faith nonetheless). I cannot prove that I am not part of a software program… but I do not consider it beneficial to live my life as though I might be living in a software program. I think I touched on the subject of purpose and origins in my previous response to you. But to reiterate… much like I do not believe that matter requires objective morality to exist, I also do not believe that origins require purpose. I think the most purpose we can have is the purpose we give ourselves. I will concede that in the grand scheme of life and our vast universe, that purpose is perhaps meaningless. But that doesn’t mean that we must not enjoy our moment in the sun.
I’m not uncomfortable with ‘verifiable assumption’. Assumptions are necessary in order to get out of bed every morning.
I would say that God is life. It’s not especially clever to say so. It’s reasonable to assume there is an ultimate source of life, intelligence and consciousness. It’s equally reasonable to assume that source would itself be living, intelligent and conscious.
I doubt that you have the same amount of faith (infinitesimally small) that you’re not part of a computer program as you do in scientific theories. Gravity? Physics? Biology? These are robust areas of scientific study. “The Matrix” is pure science fiction. Yet, you have every confidence in Abiogenesis which has no more science behind it than The Matrix .
You conceded correctly that life is meaningless in an atheistic worldview. Then you went on to say that we should enjoy our moment in the sun. Why did you add that sentiment?
I only have confidence in abiogenesis to the extent that I am confident that life came from non-life. The actual inner-workings of how it happened is yet to be discovered. I am okay with that. I am 99.9% (add as many 9s as you want) confident that the theory of gravity and evolution are correct. I am also 99.9% (add as many 9s as you want) confident that I am not part of a software program. The difference is that we actually have evidence to support gravity and evolution. We have no evidence to support that we are not part of a software program. In either case, the amount of faith necessary (infinitesimally small–regardless whether one of them has more 9s after the decimal point) is not worth stewing over to the degree that I let it influence how I live my life.
I added the sentiment about enjoying our moment in the sun… because, why not? We have two choices. We can either be miserable about there being nothing after life ends… or we can make the best of what we have. I choose option two. I think if it were revealed to you that God did not exist (hypothetically), I am confident that you would still make the most out of the life that you had left.
I’m going to suggest that you don’t truly believe your life is meaningless. You’re determination to ‘enjoy your time in the sun’ is grasping at purpose. What makes us human is that deep down, even though it grates on us intellectually, we have this idea that we matter. Truly, if you (and me) are without purpose, why are we having this conversation?
I realize it’s not very scientific. I don’t have any empirical evidence to support this claim. But I kinda feel like life matters.
I’m not going to ask you to prove it…but don’t you kinda feel the same way?
We are having this conversation because we both find value in it. You find value with things on a different level than I do, and that is understandable. You think life matters for the long-haul (eternity)… and I think life matters while we are living it. Although I think my life matters a little beyond me living it, in the moments where I may influence other people who will outlive me (but of course that all ends once our sun swallows the Earth). I know that must sound empty… but it is all I have, unfortunately. It was really difficult for me to come to terms with that, because there was a point where I did actually believe without any doubt that we must have a higher purpose and that our lives keep on going forever after we die. Unfortunately, now no matter how hard I try… I am unable to believe that any longer. Once I came to terms with that, it was pretty devastating… I mean, imagine going from thinking you will live forever… to thinking that you won’t be living 70 years from now. Man, that was a hard pill to swallow. But I suspect that most atheists wrestle with that once they begin to appreciate their true beliefs.
How would you respond to the following?
I do have faith in God… perhaps the same amount of faith that I have that I am alive and not part of a software program—which is an infinitesimally small amount of faith (but faith nonetheless). I cannot prove that God exists… but I do not consider it beneficial to live my life as though He does not. I think I touched on the subject of purpose and origins in my previous response to you. But to reiterate… much like I do not believe that matter requires objective morality to exist, I also do not believe that purpose exists without God. I think the most purpose we can have is the purpose that comes from knowing our Creator. I will concede that in the grand scheme of life and our vast universe, that purpose is all that truly matters. But that doesn’t mean that we must not enjoy our moment in the sun.
Your reply is certainly creative… and I don’t doubt your sincerity one bit. Here is my response to your comment “I cannot prove that God exists… but I do not consider it beneficial to live my life as though He does not.” – This reminds me of Pascal’s wager, because in that wager, the safest bet is to believe that God exists. Unfortunately, I am incapable of choosing to believe something by willing myself to believe it.
I value integrity and reason more than faith. If I betray the integrity of my own mind by claiming to believe something that I really don’t believe, it wouldn’t matter whether there was a purpose to life or not. I would only be a fraud… trying to deceive myself. A friend of mine once told me to fake it until I make it. I cannot find any value in that.
Your statement – “I think the most purpose we can have is the purpose that comes from knowing our Creator” does have truth to it… mainly due to your use of the word “most.” If a creator does exist and you know it to be true, then clearly your purpose would have the “most” value possible on the “purpose spectrum.” Me on the other hand, my purpose would yield the “least” value possible. But if what I believe to be true is in fact the truth… then it turns out that your perceived purpose was no greater than my own. If what I believe to be true is in fact false, then I will have the wrenching obligation to comply with reality. No matter whether I stayed true to my real beliefs or if I faked belief in God… that wrenching obligation to comply with reality would remain the same.
You are correct. Belief is not an act of will. Believing something is not at all the same things as CLAIMING to believe something. I would suggest that it’s impossible to truly ‘deceive yourself’ as long as you’re a sane person.
I too value integrity and reason. But it’s necessary to have faith in your ability to reason. It’s incorrect to see faith and reason as an either/or proposition. You don’t have to choose one or the other.
It is not necessary to abandon reason to arrive at theism. That is a misconception that has been perpetuated by proponents of atheism.
The mathematician, Sir Frederick Hoyle (who was not a religious person) calculated the odds of abiogenesis occurring. He put it equal to the possibility of rolling double sixes on a pair of unloaded dice – 50,000 times in a row. You can, of course, dismiss this and keep claiming abiogenesis as ‘the best’ explanation we have. Wouldn’t you be reasonable to ask to see some refutation of Hoyle’s calculations? Otherwise, you’re leaning heavily on your faith in atheism.
It is reasonable to ask for a rebuttal of Hoyle’s calculations. There are plenty out there. His calculations are not accepted in the scientific community. It’s kind of like a mathematician calculating the odds of randomly picking two specific people who will coach against each other in the Super Bowl at some point in the future, e.g. the odds of Jim Harbaugh vs. John Harbaugh. I could just consider the random probability of two people out of 7 billion, without considering all of the other factors that greatly influence the odds of them coaching against each other. For example, the country someone is born in, grows up in, whether they played sports, whether their parents played sports, which sports they all played, if they played in college, if their father coached football, whether they will both end up playing college football, whether either of them will play in the NFL, whether both of them end up coaching in the NFL, and so on, and so on. Each one of those factors greatly increases the probability that they will coach against each other in the Super Bowl. It is a system that builds upon itself. For example, whether their parents played sports will impact the probability of whether they play sports. Whether they played football in high school will impact the probability that they play in college. Whether they play in college will impact the probability that they coach in college. Therefore, we don’t need to subscribe to the incredible probability of randomly picking two specific people out of 7 billion people on Earth.
I don’t even know what faith in atheism means. One doesn’t need any faith to not be convinced that something is true. Many people seem to misunderstand what atheism is. Atheism is merely someone who doesn’t possess belief that God exists. It doesn’t need to be someone who claims to know that God doesn’t exist. I have seen many theists says that if a person doesn’t claim to know that God doesn’t exist, then they must be agnostic, not atheist. What they are missing is that agnosticism addresses the claim to knowledge; whereas atheism addresses belief. They don’t exist in some kind of hierarchy, where you can be promoted (or demoted depending on your perspective) from agnostic to atheist. If one doesn’t claim to “know,” they qualify as agnostic. If one doesn’t “believe” God exists, they qualify as atheist.
The statements “I don’t believe God exists” and “I believe God doesn’t exist” don’t mean the same thing. Atheists range between those two statements. The ones who say “I believe God doesn’t exist,” you could argue that they require some measure of faith because they positively believe something that they cannot support with evidence. The ones who say “I don’t believe God exists,” are simply not convinced that the claim is true. Not being convinced requires zero faith. Those are the people that some theists claim are agnostic. That would be the truth, but not the whole truth… as they would also be an atheist.
If you were to hypothesize about what ‘faith in atheism’ might mean, I think you’d have some insight into what’s really driving your responses to these questions. 🙂
I hope you’ll keep participating in these discussions.
Thanks. I’ve enjoyed the dialogue.
Abiogenesis.
Are you claiming, “A hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter” as your explanation for life on Earth?
You asked for an example of life coming from non life. I gave it to you. It’s a scientific theory. Do with it what you want but consider your question answered. Whether you continue to believe in magic is up to you.
I asked for an example. You gave me a theory. I’m not interested in changing faiths. I want hard evidence. Can you prove abiogenesis scientifically or not? If not, how is abiogenesis different from the ‘magic’ you are so fond of ascribing to me?
A theory in science is different than the way we use it. Science isn’t a faith. I understand that you’re frustrated at being burned while trying to pose a question you thought couldn’t be answered so you could continue to believe in hokus pokus but now you have no one to blame but yourself.
Schools in. Study up on it yourself.