Is There A Double Standard?

[bluegreenearth]

When reviewing various arguments from theists and non-theists, I often wonder if the people launching objections to these arguments on either side of the debate would apply the same level of skepticism towards their own arguments. Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist or theist failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument. Alternatively, describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where the objection to an argument offered by a non-theist or theist also applied to the counter-argument but was unjustifiably ignored or dismissed.

The debate will be whether a double standard was most likely exhibited in the described scenario or not.

If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #60]

1. It is absurd to think that a man rose from the dead.

2. However, I believe that life originated from inanimate (dead) matter.

But both of these require exactly the same event to happen ... namely life arising from inanimate (dead) matter. By definition, #1 starts with dead matter (ie. a dead man), and #2 starts with possibly some other form of "dead" matter, and both become living things. They are the identical process, so where is the double standard?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #60]

1. It is absurd to think that a man rose from the dead.

2. However, I believe that life originated from inanimate (dead) matter.

But both of these require exactly the same event to happen ... namely life arising from inanimate (dead) matter. By definition, #1 starts with dead matter (ie. a dead man), and #2 starts with possibly some other form of "dead" matter, and both become living things. They are the identical process, so where is the double standard?

In the scenario where organic chemicals happen to be combined and arranged in such a way to achieve the capacity to self-replicate (i.e. life), the organic chemicals are not "inanimate" in the same sense that a dead body is inanimate. Organic chemicals are able to physically interact (i.e. react) with other chemicals in various ways based on their physical properties. So, the difference between organic chemicals randomly combining to produce a chemical reaction that results in a self-replicating organic molecule and a dead body is that most of the chemical reactions that were previously sustaining the dead body have run their course. The only chemical reactions remaining active in a dead body are those involved with the decomposition of the corpse.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #63]

So, the difference between organic chemicals randomly combining to produce a chemical reaction that results in a self-replicating organic molecule and a dead body is that most of the chemical reactions that were previously sustaining the dead body have run their course. The only chemical reactions remaining active in a dead body are those involved with the decomposition of the corpse.

But both cases represent collections of molecules that behave according to the laws of chemistry, and neither collection represents something that is alive. I read Venom's comment to contrast these two scenarios as one being reasonable (corpse comes back to life) and the other as being virtually impossible (or absurd).

Once the original live body has become a corpse, it is then just a collection of molecules that may indeed be undergoing decomposition reactions, but I don't see how that collection of molecules coming back to life is any more or less probable than a set of chemicals in the presence of light, heat, electricity (eg. lightning), etc. eventually organizing to create a self-replicating thing we call life.

Of course, if the supernatural (eg. god magic) is allowed to be brought into the equation then either collection of molecules can be made into something living, because the normal laws of nature have been suspended.

[We_Are_VENOM]

it is not unreasonable to accept that it could happen naturally without the input of a magical being.

You are right, the idea that life originated from dead matter is not magic. It is actually worse than magic.

With magic, there is a cognitive magical being (magician) performing the stunts.

However, on naturalism, all of this "magical" stuff was going on with no magician whatsoever.

So, in a nut shell, this dead matter not only came to life, but it began to talk, think, and have sex.

I find this very unreasonable to accept and believe.

For a mutilated corpse to return to life after being dead for a few days is definitely not within the bounds of nature

The idea that life originated from dead matter is also not within the "bounds of nature", but that hasn't stopped you from entertaining the idea, does it?

As I said, double standard.

and can only be accepted on the basis of some input from a magical being.

We go where the evidence takes us.

[brunumb]

We go where the evidence takes us.

There is evidence of complex chemical reactions occurring naturally every day. Magical beings, well, none actually.

[We_Are_VENOM]

There is evidence of complex chemical reactions occurring naturally every day. Magical beings, well, none actually.

Is there evidence of dead matter coming to life and beginning to talk? Is there evidence of that occurring every day?

No, none actually.

[bluegreenearth]

There is evidence of complex chemical reactions occurring naturally every day. Magical beings, well, none actually.

Is there evidence of dead matter coming to life and beginning to talk? Is there evidence of that occurring every day?

No, none actually.

Is there someone claiming that organic chemicals came to life and immediately began to talk?

[Diagoras]

So, in a nut shell, this dead matter not only came to life, but it began to talk, think, and have sex.

The whole process, from ‘abiogenesis’ to ‘talking and thinking’ is of course an incredibly long and gradual one, spanning billions of years. It’s only Young Earth Creationists who cling to the position that every modern species came into being instantly and fully-formed at the command of an omnipotent god.

Nucleotide monomers (relatively simple organic molecules, e.g. cytosine, adenine) have been demonstrated in the lab to sometimes spontaneously join together and form gene-like structures made of RNA segments. So scientists have a plausible hypothesis for how the first ‘self-replicating’ molecules could have formed out of an organic ‘soup’ that would have existed in Earth’s early history.

From observing how longer molecules like proteins act in water to form rings (‘microspheres’), and how these can function like a cell membrane, it’s possible to build on that hypothesis to add ‘steps’ in the transition to the first true cell: selective permeability allowing organic materials (‘food’) in, and using geothermal heat as energy in dehydration synthesis to create even more complex molecules, e.g. ATP.

From ‘dead matter’ to the simplest prokaryotic life is still a large number of steps, and not fully understood, but the underlying principles are reasonable enough.

Your disbelief in this process suggests an unwillingness to consider scientific fact.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #63]
But both cases represent collections of molecules that behave according to the laws of chemistry, and neither collection represents something that is alive. I read Venom's comment to contrast these two scenarios as one being reasonable (corpse comes back to life) and the other as being virtually impossible (or absurd).

Once the original live body has become a corpse, it is then just a collection of molecules that may indeed be undergoing decomposition reactions, but I don't see how that collection of molecules coming back to life is any more or less probable than a set of chemicals in the presence of light, heat, electricity (eg. lightning), etc. eventually organizing to create a self-replicating thing we call life.

Of course, if the supernatural (eg. god magic) is allowed to be brought into the equation then either collection of molecules can be made into something living, because the normal laws of nature have been suspended.

In the case of a dead human body, the "inanimate" but highly evolved material comprising the dead corpse was previously "animate" and had initially developed already in an animate state from self-replicating organic molecules produced by another highly evolved set of animate self-replicating organic molecules (i.e. human parents). So, prior to death, the highly evolved self-replicating organic molecules comprising the human body were never in an inanimate state. Within a narrow range of time after death, the organic chemical reactions necessary for life to return to the entire human body eventually become physically impossible because the highly evolved arrangement of organic molecules that were previously in tact are now too far along in the decomposition process for the life giving chemical reactions to physically occur on the scale of an entire human body. This is why it is only currently possible to resuscitate some people back to life if they have only been "dead" for less than a narrow range of time.

Therefore, to equate the resurrection of a highly evolved and complex human body that has been dead and decomposing for at least many tens of hours with the emergence of the first and simplest version of a living self-replicating thing from the organic chemicals comprising it would seem to be absurd. However, I'm open to the possibility of being mistaken in my reasoning.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #70]

Therefore, to equate the resurrection of a highly evolved and complex human body that has been dead and decomposing for at least many tens of hours with the emergence of the first and simplest version of a living self-replicating thing from the organic chemicals comprising it would seem to be absurd. However, I'm open to the possibility of being mistaken in my reasoning.

Are we not on the same page with this? Once these many tens of hours has passed the once living, animate human being is nothing more than a decomposing corpse consisting of various organic and inorganic molecules following the laws of chemistry and the natural decomposition process. If this mass of matter were to find itself in a lake or river or pond and disperse it would really be no different than some other collection of similar organic and inorganic molecules that are acted upon by the same laws of chemistry, and subject to inputs from light, heat, electricity, etc. Either could (theoretically) become life again under an abiogenesis scenario.

But what is being claimed by Venom is that a once living human being having been "risen from the dead" after these many tens of hours is a viable event, while "the emergence of the first and simplest version of a living self-replicating thing" occurring naturally (without god magic) is absurd. My argument is that the decomposing corpse and the collection of chemicals in a "warm pond" are equivalent as far as being potential starting materials for an abiogenesis event ... it doesn't matter that the corpse (once the many tens of hours have passed where revival is not possible without god magic) was a human being at some point.