The Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a strictly naturalistic framework: life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced (i.e. from outside) into nature (i.e. a miracle).
How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?
Life from Non-Life?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Life from Non-Life?
Post #11We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 5 by McCulloch]
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Liam's attitude here is like someone declaring in the year 1700 that flight quite simply cannot be achieved via naturalistic means and therefore...there must be divine shenanigans going on.Correction: we don't know yet how life could spring from natural causes.
Fast forward to the year 1783, and that person has egg on their face when Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier and François Laurent d'Arlandes performed the first hot air balloon ride.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.
For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.
Swedenborg 1714 Flying Machine - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedenbor ... ng_Machine
Swedenborg's Flying Machine was first sketched by the Swedish scientist Emanuel Swedenborg in 1714, when he was 26 years old. It was later published in his ...
‎The published account · ‎Technical description
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: Life from Non-Life?
Post #12Your premise is rejected because Anthony is claiming that life "had to be introduced into nature". As there is no evidence for this claim, there is no reason to consider it true or valid. I would respond to the person by telling them they are reaching a conclusion by accepting speculation as fact.liamconnor wrote: The Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a strictly naturalistic framework: life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced (i.e. from outside) into nature (i.e. a miracle).
How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?
Your OP is basically a version of the "life must come from previous life" argument, which is entirely self defeating anyway. If life must come from previous life, where did gods come from? It's at this point that cultists claim that the god life did not need to come from previous life, which immediately invalidates the claim that life must come from previous life. Apply Occum's Razor (which you've been so found of recently in the Christianity and Apologetics threads) and obviously the simpler solution is life happening without a more complex god creature being involved...
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Life from Non-Life?
Post #13[Replying to post 11 by Monta]
Liam's attitude, as I said before, is "We can't do this now, therefore it HAS to be divine", all the while, similar situations played out in the past and it turns out it could eventually be figured out naturally.
A model isn't the same as a full scale machine capable of flight.For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.
That's precisely it. Scientists DON'T think this. We CAN send people to Jupiter...there's just problems with the distance, and keeping them alive long enough to get there.We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.
Liam's attitude, as I said before, is "We can't do this now, therefore it HAS to be divine", all the while, similar situations played out in the past and it turns out it could eventually be figured out naturally.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
Re: Life from Non-Life?
Post #14The thing is, everything starts with an idea as in Swedenborg case. Religion had nothing to do with it, he did not leave it to the divine as yu insist.rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 11 by Monta]
A model isn't the same as a full scale machine capable of flight.For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.
That's precisely it. Scientists DON'T think this. We CAN send people to Jupiter...there's just problems with the distance, and keeping them alive long enough to get there.We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.
Liam's attitude, as I said before, is "We can't do this now, therefore it HAS to be divine", all the while, similar situations played out in the past and it turns out it could eventually be figured out naturally.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Life from Non-Life?
Post #15I think we're talking past each other. I don't know what this Swedenborg person thought, the person I am insisting is leaving it to the divine is liam, who in a hypothetical example that I thought up would be like living in the year 1700 not knowing how to fly or how to build a flying machine and insisting that the reason birds can fly is ONLY because of divine intervention, that flight quite simply cannot be done naturally or replicated by men...only for our 1700's liam to look like an idiot when some men fly into the sky in a hot air balloon, and all with no god to help them.Monta wrote:The thing is, everything starts with an idea as in Swedenborg case. Religion had nothing to do with it, he did not leave it to the divine as yu insist.rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 11 by Monta]
A model isn't the same as a full scale machine capable of flight.For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.
That's precisely it. Scientists DON'T think this. We CAN send people to Jupiter...there's just problems with the distance, and keeping them alive long enough to get there.We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.
Liam's attitude, as I said before, is "We can't do this now, therefore it HAS to be divine", all the while, similar situations played out in the past and it turns out it could eventually be figured out naturally.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9864
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Life from Non-Life?
Post #16I think you are missing our point, we know religion had nothing to do with it, scientists shouldn't leave it to the divine. That's precisely where Anthony Flew went wrong.Monta wrote: The thing is, everything starts with an idea as in Swedenborg case. Religion had nothing to do with it, he did not leave it to the divine as yu insist.