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?

[bluegreenearth]

[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.

I understand now where I was confused by your earlier responses. Thanks for the clarification. It would appear that we are on the same page with this.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

The notion is typically implied. When they deny the existence God, naturalism is the only left game in town..and with that game, comes the belief in evolution and ultimately abiogensis.

Which is exactly why you see here with brunumb with his "it isn't unreasonable to think life can come from nonlife".

[bluegreenearth]

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

The notion is typically implied. When they deny the existence God, naturalism is the only left game in town..and with that game, comes the belief in evolution and ultimately abiogensis.

Which is exactly why you see here with brunumb with his "it isn't unreasonable to think life can come from nonlife".

Are you doxastically open in the sense that you accept the possibly of being potentially mistaken in your belief or understanding of a proposed concept?

[JoeyKnothead]

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

The notion is typically implied. When they deny the existence God,...

I don't so muchy deny the existence of God, as I find there's not one person I've ever encountered who can show he's there.

Care to try?

...naturalism is the only left game in town..and with that game, comes the belief in evolution and ultimately abiogensis.

Given that everything in the universe is only ever shown to be the result of nature, well there we go.

On abiogenesis, this atheist doesn't know, nor claim to know, how life came to be, only that evolution set in once it did.

Which is exactly why you see here with brunumb with his "it isn't unreasonable to think life can come from nonlife".

All life comes from atoms. Do you declare all atoms are alive?

[JoeyKnothead]

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

The notion is typically implied. When they deny the existence God, naturalism is the only left game in town..and with that game, comes the belief in evolution and ultimately abiogensis.

Which is exactly why you see here with brunumb with his "it isn't unreasonable to think life can come from nonlife".

Are you doxastically open in the sense that you accept the possibly of being potentially mistaken in your belief or understanding of a proposed concept?

Having been 6th grade spelling champ four years running, I'm pretty good about knowing words, but I gotta thank ya for this'n. I had to look it up and everything...

doxastic

of or relating to belief
denoting the branch of modal logic that studies the concept of belief

[We_Are_VENOM]

The whole process, from ‘abiogenesis’ to ‘talking and thinking’ is of course an incredibly long and gradual one, spanning billions of years.

Sure, according to the theory. Guess what, Christians have a theory, too.

Our theory is that an incredibly long time ago, "God created the heavens and the earth".

That is our theory.

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.

No, ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Well, science seem to support us there.

Second, so what? That is your theory. Again, you have yours, and we have ours.

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.

Nonsense, because the early earth conditions were absolutely hazardous for the creation of life.

Second, just because you have life doesn't mean you have consciousness, so now you've got to get this newly existent life thinking, which is impossible.

And third, even if you are able to create life from nonliving material, that only proves that, guess what; intelligence is STILL needed to create the effect...which is not an accurate depiction of the "early earth" conditions, either.

So, you've got problems, my man.

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.

Listen, you can use whatever bio-babble you want to explain what you think your theory needs to become believable.

What does Genesis 1:1 mean to you? Nothing, right?

Well, that is what the bio-babble means to me.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #76]

Well, I occasionally participate in this forum for the prospect of potentially learning something new, expanding my intellectual capabilities, and discovering where I might be mistaken about a belief. So, since I'm not financially privileged, it helps to know I've at least succeeded in contributing something in return for what I receive from this forum.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Well, that is what the bio-babble means to me.

That's the kinda thinking that has anti-vaxxers running around in public places without masks.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Are you doxastically open in the sense that you accept the possibly of being potentially mistaken in your belief or understanding of a proposed concept?

Sure. Now whatcha got?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I don't so muchy deny the existence of God, as I find there's not one person I've ever encountered who can show he's there.

Care to try?

If you were a betting man, where will you place your chips?

Given that everything in the universe is only ever shown to be the result of nature, well there we go.

Moot point, since the universe began to exist.

On abiogenesis, this atheist doesn't know, nor claim to know, how life came to be, only that evolution set in once it did.

What if abiogensis is false? Then what?

All life comes from atoms. Do you declare all atoms are alive?

I like this definition..

"All living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to the environment, reproduction, adaptation, growth and development, homeostasis, energy processing, and evolution. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life."

https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/mhccm ... ine%20life.