For_The_Kingdom wrote:
This isn't an argument. I can't create a star either. Does that mean stars aren't possible?
No, but then again stars aren't considered "sentient life", at least not as far as I'm concerned.
Ah, so now you are subjectively applying the standard of repeatability in a lab as a requirement. Which means it is not a standard at all then. Let me know when you can come up with something more consistent and applicable to everything...
Kenisaw wrote:
You have not refuted my point that everything in every life form known to exist does so within the laws of the universe, and therefore IS possible.
Right, so tell me what "law of the universe" will allow for life to come from nonlife.
All of them, as I've already explained.
Kenisaw wrote:
You have not refuted my point that every single particle in every life form is "inanimate".
Are you
living, or are you NOT
living?
Living obviously, which STILL does not refute my point that every single particle in every life form is inanimate. Or let's ask it another way - name for us the molecule in your body that makes you "living"...
Kenisaw wrote:
Whether or not I can personally replicate a series of chemical reactions has nothing to do with it.
Yes it does...any scientific "theory" that cannot be demonstrated to be true by the means of
observation,
repeated experiment, and
prediction... cannot be considered a fact.
No one said abiogenesis is a scientific theory. It's not. And no scientific theory is called a "fact". A scientific theory is a well substantiated concept based on the evidence. All scientific theories are considered open and incomplete, just in case more data is found in the future. What I said is that there is evidence that supports the claim that life started naturally, as opposed to the complete lack of evidence that points to any creationism or supernatural concept.
You can speculate how it happened all you like, but what you think is true via speculation, and what you know to be true based on the scientific method...those are two different things.
Yes they are, and every single data point we have so far points to one possibility over the other. Care to guess which one that is?
Kenisaw wrote:
That's your smoking gun? "Bio-babble", is it? Nothing I've written above is false. You don't have to take my word for it either, you can verify all of it at your leisure. Calling it "bio-babble" is not an argument. If you can cite specific reasons why a particular item listed above is inaccurate (and I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor) you let me know...
It is
bio-babble. Dazzling the audience with big and technical words, all sounds good. Sounds great. Sounds very...
scientify..But when it comes to actually implementing what you are saying in an actual science lab and producing actual results, that is the tricky part.
So, to reinterate, you can't seem to cite specific reasons why any of those items I listed are inaccurate. Now on top of "bio-babble" I get "big and technical words" thrown at me too.
If you have any specific questions about my discussion points please let me know. I'd be sincerely happy to clarify or explain the material.
Sure, Stanley Miller can dazzle you by using technical words to describe his "experiment". But what he can't do is go in a lab and produce a living cell.
Miller-Urey was never trying to create a living cell. So seem to lack understanding about the stated goals of those experiments...
Kenisaw wrote:
Yes, and the exact things that living cells are made up of are A) inanimate material, and B) exist within the laws of the universe.
Again,
cart before the horse fallacy. Notice that when you say "...and the exact things that
living cells are made up of"..
But when you say "living", you are presupposing a living cell, when the living cell is exactly what the question is about...how did it become living? Can you go in a lab and produce a "living" cell? No, you can't.
No, when I say "living" I am talking about a complex group of molecules that follow the definition of what constitutes "alive" biologically. As you can't refute that life is allowable under the laws of the universe, and you can't refute that all living things are made up out of inanimate components, the answer to your question is that "living" is a collective property of those complex groupings of molecules found in "life".
Kenisaw wrote:
Those things that exist in "LIVING CELLS", like sugars and amino acids and alcohols? They exist in deep space, on things like meteorites and comets (see Murchison meteorite for an example). Apparently you think they are somehow special because living things use them. You are misinformed.
No, it is YOU who is misinformed. "because LIVING things use them". Ok, so what makes things "living", and how did nature accomplish that goal. And if you know how nature accomplished that goal, why can't you accomplish that goal...in a lab?
Hmm.
How am I misinformed? Just because living things use those particular molecules doesn't mean they don't exist outside life. They do, all over the place. That life would use building blocks found in nature shouldn't come as a surprise at all...
Kenisaw wrote:
Actually that isn't true. People have taken organic material, put it inside a lipidic membrane, and made living cells.
Show me any article/link where a living cell was created. Not happening.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/
Small excerpt from article...
CNN:
Did you create new life?
Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive.
But we didn't create life from scratch.
We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.
See? That isn't life from life...it is "life out of a living cell". Show me an article where a living cell was created from scratch.
That's exactly what I was talking about. They put organic components (a manufactured DNA) into a lipidic membrane (that's what a cell wall is) that didn't have any DNA in it (and therefore had no ability to reproduce, metabolize, etc) and the combined materials started acting as a living cell. Maybe I shouldn't have used big and technical words in my original statement, my apologies for that...
Kenisaw wrote:
But that is really beside the point. We know life exists, we know life is made up of components found in every corner of the known universe, and we know that life exists within the known laws of the universe. Those are facts. No faith required.
Yeah, and we know that the material that Buckingham Palace is made up of existed before the palace was built...we know that the "stuff" existed prior to it being built...But I guess we can go right ahead and conclude that the palace began to exist based on an extremely long period of naturalistic occurrences...and over time...brick by brick...step by step....room by room...glass by glass...the palace was built.
Pretty bad comparison. The molecules in your cells aren't modified into rectangular shapes, or stacked in unnatural formations. There's no intelligent changes needed to any of the chemistry or physics inside any molecule in any life form in order for those things to exist. They exist within the rules of the universe, without modification...
Sure, it took billions of years, but in so much time, anything can happen, right? No intelligent designers needed...no engineering required...no blue prints....just good ole nature...getting the job done.
770 million years actually, but it sounds like you are finally getting it. Life is just chemistry in action. Well done you!
Kenisaw wrote:
We know that some molecules (including some that act as RNA ligases) are self replicating all by themselves. We know that meteorites and comets rich in all sorts of organic components exist and fall to Earth all the time. Facts, not faith.
Ok, so go in a lab and simulate the early earth...simulate the right conditions, the right environment...and get life.
OK. Tell me what the conditions were, like the pH of the water, the salinity, the temp, the types and amounts of dissolved gases contained within. Then build me a lab that can simulate oceans of water with thousands of miles of shorelines full of reactive surfaces, and don't forget to add the underwater volcanic ridges. You'll need to bring the moon in closer too since the tides were much bigger back then. When you've got that all set let me know.
Kenisaw wrote:
What we have zero data or empirical evidence for is any supernatural claim in the entirety of human history...
We don't even have that for the
naturalistic claims.
Well, except for the stuff I've been listing over and over that you can't refute you mean...
Kenisaw wrote:
Because the laws of the universe allow for it to happen. It's possible.
Can you prove that?
You're alive, aren't you? If it wasn't possible for you to exist under the laws of the universe, you wouldn't exist. You do. Clearly life is possible within the rules. I feel that it is a little ridiculous that this even needs to be explained...
Kenisaw wrote:
The universe allows for stars to exist. We can't make those happen either. But I bet you own a pair of sunglasses...
Are stars living? Now of course, I can also mention the fact that we don't know where the "stuff" that makes up stars...where did it come from? Do we know that? No, we don't.
You mean where everything in the universe came from? It came from nothing. The whole universe equals zero, didn't you know that?
Kenisaw wrote:
Bad question. Life isn't a matter of intelligence.
It's a matter of chemistry and physics and so forth. Your predisposition to think life takes intelligence to exist is why you would ask such an illogical question in the first place...
It is a legitimate question to ask how is a mindless and blind process (nature) able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do.
It is a legitimate question to ask how life began. That humans can't answer the question at this time doesn't validate the irrational concept that it takes life to produce life...
Kenisaw wrote:
The existence of something does not prove how it came to be. The only thing the existence of consciousness proves is that consciousness does indeed exist.
There is no doubt that consciousness began to exist...and
everything that begins to exist has a cause. Again, It is a legitimate question; Consciousness began to exist, but where did it come from and how did it get here.
Your inability to answer the question has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the question.[/quote]
I agree that consciousness began to exist (which makes an eternal god creature impossible by the way). I do not agree that everything that begins to exist has a cause, because the universe is just nothing broken up into pieces (that's for another discussion however). If complex groups of molecules have a property that allows consciousness, than consciousness will happen if those molecules get together.
It's a legitimate question about how consciousness happens. What is not legitimate is what you did, which is to claim that the existence of consciousness proves intent, which is utter nonsense.
Kenisaw wrote:
It is false logic to claim that something can only exist if something else created it. It's a self defeating argument.
Straw man. No one is claiming that "something can only exist if something else created it". Hell, I don't even hold that view, so I sure as heck wouldn't argument that point.
You wrote in a previous post: “The argument from consciousness does an excellent job of pointing out the fact that consciousness is nothing that something one can go in a lab and create, thus, it had to come from an outside source, something that was already conscious. But we don't need to talk about that, do we?� You claim here that consciousness had to come from consciousness. You still want to claim that you “don’t even hold that view�?
Kenisaw wrote:
If it takes a conscious to create consciousness, where did your god creature's conscious come from? See, self defeating.
It is amazing how you think you have this knock-down refutation, when in reality, you don't.
If I don’t then show me the hole in it, which we all notice you haven’t done yet. Maybe this should be listed under “bio-babble�…
The argument is that any consciousness which begins to exist requires a conscious cause. And since God never began to exist...well, you get the point, don't you?
Tada. The false logic loop. I love this one in particular because it contains two different logical errors. The first is that an eternal being can never reach this point to “create� anything. If it never had a beginning, then it would take an infinity in its existence before it got around to creating consciousness. But there is no middle of infinity, so it could never reach that moment. The second is that you’ve already defeated your own argument. If a god creature doesn’t need another consciousness to have conscious then obviously it possible for consciousness to exist outside of created efforts. Which means you can’t claim that consciousness requires a conscious cause.
Now, we both know that consciousness began to exist, and all I am asking is where did it come from and how do you scientifically explain its origins.
I can’t explain it. People are working on answering that question. Since there is zero evidence of divine critters or the supernatural however, there certainly isn’t any reason to think the answer lies in that speculative realm…
Kenisaw wrote:
Oh, I'm sure you want to throw out the "god exception" at this point. You'll want to say that the god creature doesn't need creating, because it either always existed or because it is just god. But now you've just admitted that it doesn't always take a conscious to create consciousness. Self defeating once again.
Again, you are misinformed on the argument. The argument is..
A. Consciousness began to exist on this earth
B. The consciousness that began to exist on this earth owes its existence to a "Super conscious being".
C. The "Super Being" that created consciousness cannot owe its existence to anything outside of itself.
In a nut shell, the argument is stating that
mental states aren't physical, but immaterial...therefore, no naturalistic explanation can be given to explain the origins of any immaterial "thing".
And this is not special pleading for God, it is simply appealing to the best explanation.
Your premise is faulty. You cannot show with any authority that conscious can only exist because a different consciousness desired it to. In fact you are putting the cart before the horse. You must first show that the supernatural creature actually exists. After you do this, then you have to show that this supernatural creature bothered to create consciousness. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it created it. For all you know it exists and had nothing to do with the whole affair.
You also have no evidence or empirical data that the mental state is not physical. In fact everything gathered to date on the topic clearly shows that the mental state is about energy and chemical reactions. So this premise is faulty as well because it is also baseless and devoid of any supporting evidence.
If you would stop making claims and start producing evidence to support these claims, maybe this discussion could advance…
Kenisaw wrote:
(It's also self defeating because if a being always existed then it can never arrive at this point and time to create anything. there is no middle of infinity, but that is for another discussion)...
God didn't "arrive" at any point in time to create...but he CAUSED the entire chain of causation to BEGIN. But yeah, that is another discussion.
Great. Prove it.
Kenisaw wrote:
There is evidence of abiogenesis. We know life started simply a long time ago (instead of just magically appearing into modern animals).
"Simply" is an understatement.
Not really. A prokaryote is a simple step up from a protobiont, which is a simple cell membrane (lipidic) containing self replicating molecules. The cell membrane is the only cellular structure that is found in all of the cells of all of the organisms on Earth by the way. What we don’t see is the sudden appearance of cows and chickens and humans, like some religions claim.
Kenisaw wrote:
We know all living things are related.
Only in the sense that God created all living things. Of course, as a theist, I prefer the
common designer hypothesis over the
common ancestor one.
Not in that sense at all. No evidence or empirical data agrees with such drivel. We know they are related by geological evidences, biological ones, and genetic ones, and there isn’t even one data point that supports supernatural conjectures…
Kenisaw wrote:
We know that there are basic molecules that self-replicate, which is all that living things are but on a larger scale.
Please explain how did ANYTHING get to the point of living after existing in a nonliving state. Please explain how this is done.
Property of the combination of large groups of molecules. Just like color and melting point and every other characteristic of matter is a property of the combination of the particles that make up that matter.
Kenisaw wrote:
We know of viruses, that do not fit the definition of alive yet can self replicate (they are a stage between life and non-life in other words).
I am talking about sentient life.
Yes, completely ignore something that is an obvious stepping stone between non-living and living things. That does wonders for your stance, ignoring the majority of life on Earth. Talking about just sentient life (like elephants and dolphins) doesn’t change any of the points made however.
Kenisaw wrote:
We know life does not violate any law of the universe.
But its
origins does.
No, it doesn’t. It’s frustrating that you cannot grasp the rather simple idea that if life could not start within the laws of the universe, it can’t possible EXIST within the laws of the universe. Since nothing about life violates any of those laws, what about the start of life possibly could? There is no chemical, physical, thermodynamic, or any other limitation that I can think of. If you know of one please share it for all to see…
Kenisaw wrote:
We know that one of the primary building blocks to life (amino acids) exist all over the place (as do sugars and alcohols and other organic molecules).
Where did it all come from?
It came from nothing. Add up all the positive energy in the universe (mass, light, thermal, kinetic, etc ) and subtract out the negative (gravity) and you get zero. Net charge of the universe is zero. Net spin, net momentum, net (insert here)…all zero. It’s been confirmed time and again. The universe is nothing broken up into lots of pieces. 1+1+1+1-1-1-1-1=0, but on a far grander scale. Don’t take my word for it, look into it…
Kenisaw wrote:
The only other option, the "creation" option, has exactly zero empirical data supporting it. There isn't even one single shred of evidence that the supernatural exists.
I am convinced by the evidence that the supernatural not only exists, but is absolutely necessary...considering the fact that we live in a universe that began to exist.
Once again, existence does not prove creation. No one even knows if the universe began to exist, or this is just the latest incarnation of sequential universes for that matter. Either way, since everything in the universe cancels out, there is no need for a something for it to exist.
Kenisaw wrote:
Since there is a lack of evidence for supernatural claims, and there IS evidence of a natural beginning to life (which you conveniently omit from your copy and paste job), that means the obvious conclusion is that life began naturally.
It is impossible for life to began naturally based on the arguments against infinite regress...the argument from consciousness...and also the LACK OF EVIDENCE for abiogenesis.
Infinite regress is null in the face of the universe equating to nothing. The argument from consciousness is also null as outlined above. And since there is evidence that life began naturally, even that statement in false.
Kenisaw wrote:
There's evidence for supernaturalism? Thanks for claiming it, how about providing it now?
In progress.
Like the work on abiogenesis you mean?
Kenisaw wrote:
And you'd be wrong on both theories (because evolution and abiogenesis are not the same theory).
One requires the other...they are related...you can't have evolution without abiogenesis, and if abiogenesis is negated, evolution is impossible.
If a god creature made all life, evolution could still not occur? Why not?
Kenisaw wrote:
Not sure where evolution got thrown into this by the way, since we were talking about abiogenesis.
One conversation leads to another...
Only in your world. They are not related in science. The theory of evolution deals with the change that groups of life forms go through over time. How life started has no part in that theory. I would suggest further investigation into the two topics so that a greater understanding of each one will help you understand the differences between them…
Kenisaw wrote:
But since you brought it up, the amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is enormous. If you want to start a thread on that particular scientific theory, please do so.
You start it, I will be there.
No need. There’s all kinds of them already, and I haven’t seen a cultist win that debate to date.
Kenisaw wrote:
The possibility that a god exists does not mean one does. False logic. I (and many other atheists in this forum) will immediately tell you that we cannot state with 100% certainty that a god creature of some sort does not exist. Perhaps one does.
What you've done is tripped and fell right into the Modal Ontological Argument. Unfortunate for you.
That being said, you are simply wrong. If God's existence is possible, he must exist, because his existence would be a
necessary truth. So If God's existence is necessary (meaning he
cannot fail to exist), then if it is possible for God to exist, he must actually exist.
Why? Because a proposition cannot be
possibly necessarily true, but
actually false.
So just by admitting that God could exist, you are admitting that God exists. This argument is very abstract..so I will let it all marinate for you. I will start a thread on it soon.
I look forward to it. The argument isn’t valid. Like all philosophical debates, this one has to start with certain premises, but if the premises are faulty then the whole argument falls apart. Please start your thread if you so desire. But I will point out to you now that every single god must therefore exist according to your argument. So must leprechauns, unicorns, Santa, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and any other claimed entity for which there is currently zero evidence showing they exist. Literally an infinite number of such beings must exist, because there is no limitation on supernatural beings, which means your particular flavor of god is statistically zero necessarily. So start that thread, and let’s see what happens…
Kenisaw wrote:
I don't know, maybe they do. How do you know they don't? We have verifiable laboratory data that particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Everything in the universe, like money and cars and bikes, are made out of these particles. Seems you don't deny that it happens, you just want them to happen in more complex groupings of particles. Start a research fund and see what you can find out...
First off, I disagree that the particles pop out of nothing. I understand that in physics, the word "nothing" has been equivocated a lot, thanks to Lawrence Krauss and others.
Read up on the Casimir Effect. They don’t exist, then they do, then they don’t.
If the virtual particles can pop in to nothing, then so should everything else.
Why?
Kenisaw wrote:
Once again I must point out that you are making statements with a general lack of knowledge about the topic that you are discussing. In Physics it is well known that empty space is actually more unstable, more volatile than space with stuff in it. Please research this more to better your understanding of the nature of quantum fluctuations in empty space.
And once again, I must point out that you are equivocating the term "nothing". Nothing is "nothing". If the
empty space you are referring to is "nothing" in the sense that there isn't a single entity within it (whether natural or supernatural), then all of this "unstable" stuff is nonsense.
You saying that "empty space" (if you are using it synonymously with "nothing) is unstable is no different than saying that "nothing" is the color red..or that "nothing" weighs 5 lbs. It is nonsense.
Krauss has been called out on this equivocation, and his followers have fallen suit with the same nonsense behind him.
No it is not synonymous with that. Empty space is unstable. Go ask a physicist, you don’t have to take my word for it…
Kenisaw wrote:
It's only a problem when you don't understand the basics of quantum mechanics and the fluctuations of empty space. You don't need infinity to have something. The previously mentioned physics forums or blogs online are a great source to find succinct explanations about these natural phenomena.
Sorry, charlie. The problem of infinite regression applies to ANYTHING. You can take whatever cosmological model you like. It has nothing to do with a heavy understanding of physics, or a poor understanding of physics. It just doesn't matter. You can appeal to it all you want, but it won't do you any good.
The fact of the matter is...the entire cause/effect chain cannot be past eternal. Point blank, period.
No it doesn’t apply to anything, because of the time component. Can you prove that cause and effort begin before the start of spacetime? Nope…
Kenisaw wrote:
I do not claim that anything is more correct than anything else. I am presenting to you the current understanding of some of the basics of quantum mechanics and things like virtual particles. These things are based on mathematical calculations, experimentation, and observation. These things fall under the general consensus of scientific understanding and are generally agreed to be accurate and reliable. Other things do not, but we aren't talking about those other things.
All of that stuff exist within time/space, though...and the infinity applies to it.
Incorrect, because spacetime is not infinite…