Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's two more instances of you claiming that there isn't any evidence ("none") for single-celled organisms evolving into humans.

Maybe I should clarify; there isn't any "good" evidence for single-celled organisms evolving into humans.

This is simply dead wrong. Evolution is not an unproven hypothesis anymore.

I disagree.

The evidence for it is so overwhelming it has earned the right to be called a theory which, in the scientific method, is as close to scientific "fact" as it gets. You can't legitimately discard all of the hard evidence (fossil and genetics) for evolution and pretend it doesn't exist.

I am saying that there is no evidence that sentient life came from nonliving material. You are more than welcome to believe that if you want. I, however, refuse to believe that you can create consciousness from inanimate matter.

Abiogenesis is another matter altogether since a definitive process has not been identified or demonstrated.

My point exactly.

But abiogenesis and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Yes they do...if God is taken OUT of the equation, you can't have life EVOLVING if you don't have life BEGINNING. Evolution depends wholeheartedly on the concept of abiogenesis.

If you don't believe in intelligent design, then you need an adequate theory to explain the origin of life from nonliving material. If you don't have that, you don't have anything.

Evolution requires life to exist as a prerequisite ... it doesn't concern itself with how life originated, only that it did at some point.

Moot point...considering the fact that evolution can't be true if abiogenesis is false.

Do your "no evidence" comments apply to abiogenesis only, or do you apply that same statement to evolution itself?

I will be even bolder in my contentions; I am saying I don't believe in abiogenesis OR macroevolution. Neither one can/did occur naturally.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, yet to be proven or disproven so is still "on the table."

No arguments from me there.

Evolution has been confirmed via extensive observations and measurements, and has yet to be falsified, so it is now a valid theory.

Microevolution has been confirmed via extensive observations and measures, not macroevolution. The evolutionists would like to believe that just because microevolution is undeniably true, that this should somehow be extended to the macro-level.

The problem is, there is no scientific evidence supporting this leap...the only logic is; "God didn't do it, so it must have occurred that way".

So are you claiming that there is no evidence for humans evolving from simpler life forms because you don't believe there is any evidence for evolution (or you just don't believe the evidence for some reason)?

I am saying that since it is impossible for consciousness/mental states to arise from physical matter, it is therefore impossible for sentient life (in general) to begin to exist from physical matter. So this will cover evolution as well.

Or are you claiming that because abiogenesis has yet to be demonstrated that this invalidates evolution somehow (even though the two have nothing to do with each other)?

First off, as I mentioned above, they have EVERYTHING to do with each other. If you don't have conclusive evidence that sentient life CAN arise from nonliving material, then evolution CANNOT be a brute fact. Why? Because it JUST may be the case that abiogenesis is physically impossible. As you stated, the jury is still out on that one (even though I think it is false, but for arguments sake). So, the jury may come back as IMPOSSIBLE, so if it is impossible, then that would make evolution also false because it depends on preexisting life.

The only way it will work itself out is if you believe (as some people do) that evolution occurred, but with divine intervention. There are some theists out there that actually believe this...and my beef is with them also.

Just trying to find out exactly what it is you are claiming there is no evidence for (abiogenesis or evolution, or both), and if the answer is abiogenesis, how does that in any way suggest that evolution (single-celled organisms to humans) did not happen?

I hope I adequately answered your question above.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It finally dawns on me here.
You honestly have not got a clue as to what it is you are talking about here.

I ask for a definition for non life, and for some reason, you're talking about sentience.
I talk about non-life and how we are made up of non-living particles, and each and every time I bring them up...you literally ignore it. You have no response to my constant mentioning of carbon, hydrogen etc.

You asked for a definition of non life, and my answer to you was "my couch". My couch is non-living, isn't it? Don't know what more you want.

I would ask you the follow up question of, does a thing have to have one of the above senses, be able to think and feel in order to be in the category "alive"...but I won't. Bacteria clearly do not think, talk, hear, listen or feel, and yet they are life-forms.

My contention is that consciousness/sentience cannot come from physical material. Bacteria may be considered "life", but it is not considered "sentient" life. That is why I keep using the word "sentient", to prevent people like you who are scratching and clawing to come up with an exception.

I knew people like you would try to use physical entities like bacteria and plants as an exception to my point...that is precisely why I keep emphasizing the word "SENTIENT" in my posts so that I can make the distinction between life (in general), to sentient life (specifically).

Despite my many efforts, who else but rikuo would STILL manage to NOT get the picture despite my efforts. SMH.

I take it you never studied Venn Diagrams in maths class?

I vaguely remember.

How do we know that the standard you and so many other people label as 'God' actually IS the correct one?

I don't have a knock-down argument as to how we "know" God's standard as the correct standard. But what I do know is that we have evidence of a supernatural moral agent that has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.

And since I believe in the evidence for the Resurrection, I have reasons to believe/trust that what Jesus said is true and that God's ways are perfect and therefore is the standard of benevolence.

Clearly, my point flew right over your head. It was to point out that your assumptions about your opponents are baseless.

First off, I didn't assume anything. I asked questions, such as "are you a vegetarian, vegan, etc"...and if you aren't, then don't go crying about what God did to "animals" without also crying about what human beings do to "animals".

Replace the word Nazis there with the word Hebrews or Crusaders, and what does that do?

And replace Hebrews/Crusaders with butchers, meat markets, restaurants...and what does that do?

I take it you don't know why. I know. Let's see if you do.

Let me guess, survival, right? LOL. A member of the Crips can tell you the same thing: "I busted a cap in his ass...for survival in these streets". LOL.

No. I will not stop pointing out that the many acts that are attributed to "God" found in the Bible disqualify that entity (should he actually exist) from deserving any measure of worship or loyalty.

So, you have a preconceived notion regarding what is morally good, and what is morally bad...and God, according to you, acted morally bad. Ok, now...by what moral standard are you judging God's actions? Where are you getting it from?

Why should I obey an entity who, according to the Bible, flooded the entire planet and reduced my species down to only eight members?

LOL. So, ignore all of the parts in the Bible where God had blessed people in abundance for their moral decencies. Ignore the parts where he protected them from their enemies, blessed them with food, redeemed them from forced slaverym and just in general, took them under his wing.

Conveniently ignore those parts. I guess that as an atheist who is critical of the Bible, the job is to focus on whatever is going to justify your continual unbelief.

If you successfully knock down atheism, does your belief win by default?

Theism sure does, obviously.

That people who don't smoke weed shouldn't be punished because other people smoke it.
Simple concepts that apparently your God (and by extension yourself) fail to understand.

Then perhaps those people have other reasons as to why they should be punished.

So, it's not boundless love and compassion, then?

Everything has its limits.

He has a purpose and he's just using us to accomplish that purpose

What is wrong with that? If I want to tidy up my house, and I use my children to help in that regard..is that a problem? God is our Father, and we are his children...and he uses us to accomplish his will at times. Not because he needs to, but because he wants to...and we should fill honored to assist the Almighty.

, and he can and will discard us once that purpose is accomplished.

Who said anything about discard? According to Judeo-Christianity, you know, MY religion...God never discards us, in fact, Christianity is based entirely on the fact that God DIDN'T discard us (you know, the Resurrection, perhaps?)

Were you so busy focusing on ways to criticize God and the Bible, that you missed that fundamental principal regarding Christian theology? Did you conveniently skip over that concept as you scanned through the Bible looking for something to be critical of?

So it's not objective morality. Why in the comment prior to this one you tried to pretend that slavery isn't sanctioned AT ALL within the Bible is beyond me. This line from you would EXCUSE the sanctioning of slavery.

I said FORCED slavery was never sanctioned, permitted, ALLOWED.

Wrong. I am saying that for an all powerful entity, there are none. What does God need with a [strike]starship[/strike], I mean, war?

Ohh, I'm sorry...I didn't know that you, in your finite knowledge, could know the best course of action than the Almighty. My bad.

If there is an objective standard, it sure as heck not to be found with the god you espouse.

I beg to differ.

So which one of us needs to be explicitly told by what they think is an all powerful being before they won't do certain actions?
What does that tell us about that person's moral compass?

I would rather have what I think is an all powerful being tell me what to do, before I listen to the electrons/neutrons in a 3 lb chunk of matter (brain) telling me what to do.

No, it's because you trumpet your god as somehow being the source of an objective morality, yet at the same time tell us that what your god trumpets as moral changes from time to time, situation to situation.
In other words, subjective morality is what you're describing.

The difference is, when God changes, it is a change for the better, all the time. When human changes, it can be a change for the worse. So the quality of God's changes, regardless of the situation or time in history, is NEVER degraded.

Humans, on the other hand..

[For_The_Kingdom]

Were the slave's wife and children free to go? Nope, they weren't.

That would depend, because it specifically states that if the MASTER gave his slave a wife and she bore him children, then the slave would leave after he fulfilled his six year obligation...but his wife and children would stay (Exodus 21:4).

This can be looked at as, since it is the master who gave the slave the woman to marry, then technically speaking, the woman/children is still the masters property and belonged to him.

However, it also specifically states that if the man CAME INTO SLAVERY AS A MARRIED MAN, then when he is freed, his WIFE WILL GO WITH HIM (Exodus 21:3).

This was a case of hostage taking, a way to have Hebrew men slaves remain as slaves beyond the seven year jubilee

No it isn't hostage taking. It is simple; either have a wife when you enter "slaveship" so that she can leave with you in seven years, or NOT accept a wife from your master until your slaveship ended in the seventh year. Plain and simple.

The rules are laid out, plain as day..this was the law and everyone was aware of it...and if anyone found themselves in that predicament, it isn't because of any hidden clauses or ignorance of the law.

(besides, I thought earlier you said slavery wasn't sanctioned, except for prisoners of war. Changed your tune, have you?).

For the third time, I said that there was no FORCED SLAVERY sanctioned in the Bible by the Israelite's as designated by God. Exodus 21:16 states:Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death.

So this idea that you'd like to portray, such as God permitting the Hebrews to go through villages pummeling people and rounding them up and forcing them into a life of slavery is something that just didn't happen.

Now, you can certainly read the Bible and make attempts to morph certain verses to make them say/imply something that it doesn't, but you will come across as looking more and more disingenuous than you already look at times on here.

If the man slave wants to stay with his wife and children, he has to profess his love to his master and family, and then the master gets to keep him forever.

Or he could simply wait until his slaveship was over to get married, or he could get married before he entered slaveship...and in each case he would remain with his wife and children.

Doesn't change the fact that the father is the one selling his daughter as a piece of property.

Again...I thought earlier you said the only slavery sanctioned was prisoners of war. Women back then generally were not soldiers.

You are assuming that the daughter was sold as a slave AGAINST her will and the context of the subject matter is not about labor, but about marriage, as verse 9 indicates.

There is no Biblical evidence of forced slavery beyond prisoners of war.

Also, what the heck kind of standard is 'displeasing to your master' anyway?

I don't know, but normally if a worker is "displeasing" to their employer, it wouldn't be long before they are FIRED. That isn't a new concept to you, is it?

The buyer could keep her as a slave and if she's pretty and desirable, he could rape her all he wanted.

Please, you can make a inaccurate comment without having to flat out LIE to do so.

The passage from Exodus, (which I am WELL familiar with), says the only way out is for her to displease him (with the judgement on that left up to the slave owner) or if she marries the master or his son. As long as the master is happy with her as a slave, and as long as she doesn't marry him or his son...slavery for the girl!

Well, first of all, you have to prove that the daughter was forced into slavery, which the context does not imply. If she was not forced, then the action was entirely voluntary for whatever reasons that people of those times could justify going into slavery.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 420 by For_The_Kingdom]

You asked for a definition of non life, and my answer to you was "my couch". My couch is non-living, isn't it? Don't know what more you want.

An example is NOT a definition. I honestly don't know how to be any clearer than that.

My contention is that consciousness/sentience cannot come from physical material.

Your contention is meritless, since the only examples of consciousness that you and I both agree exist come from objects made up of physical material i.e. animals.

Bacteria may be considered "life",

No may be there, they ARE alive.

but it is not considered "sentient" life.

Correct, because they lack many biological structures found in animals we know to be sentient.

That is why I keep using the word "sentient", to prevent people like you who are scratching and clawing to come up with an exception.

I am not trying to come up with an exception. I am trying to make sure we are all speaking the same language (so to speak), trying to be as accurate and precise as possible. I tell you many times what I consider life and non-life to be, I tell you that we as living beings are made up of non-living particles yet every time I try to get you to talk about the subject, you jump ahead to talking about sentience/consciousness instead. You honestly sound to me like in your eyes, the box labelled 'living' has a requirement of 'sentience/consciousness' (whereas, my box doesn't).

Can I get you to agree to the following two statements?
1) Humans are living things (consciousness/sentience not a requirement to be in category)
2) Humans's physical structure is ultimately made up of particles that are themselves non-living i.e. carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus etc.

I knew people like you would try to use physical entities like bacteria and plants as an exception to my point...that is precisely why I keep emphasizing the word "SENTIENT" in my posts so that I can make the distinction between life (in general), to sentient life (specifically).

Because you keep talking about life cannot arise from non-life, and yet, the closest you have ever gotten to explaining yourself on that subject is talking about sentience/consciousness, which is jumping ahead.
All life (that both you and I agree on that exists) is physical, made up of non-living particles. So clearly, life DOES arise from non-life, yet you never seem to acknowledge this point.
Notice that I am not talking about sentience/consciousness. I am talking about things that are alive, which can include life-forms with sentience or consciousness (but is not a requirement).

I vaguely remember.

Have you googled them? Looked them up? It's really simple.

I don't have a knock-down argument as to how we "know" God's standard as the correct standard. But what I do know is that we have evidence of a supernatural moral agent that has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.

Evidence that I am constantly able to show is full of holes. Even if I could not refute the existence of this moral agent who reveals himself as Jesus Christ (speaking hypothetically here), how does that guarantee that his morals are correct, right?

And since I believe in the evidence for the Resurrection, I have reasons to believe/trust that what Jesus said is true and that God's ways are perfect and therefore is the standard of benevolence.

If I were in your shoes, I would not make that leap. I would not make the leap from "I believe he resurrected" to "I trust whatever he says implicitly".
Thinking agents can lie. This is a fact, and there is no way to get away from it.
Do I need to quote that famous line from Thessallonians about God sending spirits to deceive?

Let me guess, survival, right? LOL. A member of the Crips can tell you the same thing: "I busted a cap in his ass...for survival in these streets". LOL.

Except examination of the evidence reveals that the Crip's member could have done something different. There is no physical requirement for him to shoot the man.
A lion or some other carnivore who wants to survive to old age, mate and have progeny has no choice but to hunt and kill prey.

So, you have a preconceived notion regarding what is morally good,

It's a far better method than judging[strike] Hitler[/strike] God by the standard[strike] Hitler[/strike] God himself gives you.

Ok, now...by what moral standard are you judging God's actions? Where are you getting it from?

My own standard. A standard developed over a life-time of observation. I am at liberty to question the accuracy of any judgements I make using this standard.
Can you say the same for yours? Can you say to me, honestly, that you are at liberty to question a moral judgement you believe God has made?

and God, according to you, acted morally bad.

Should God get a free pass on moral evaluations/judgements? Automatic wins?

So, ignore all of the parts in the Bible where God had blessed people in abundance for their moral decencies. Ignore the parts where he protected them from their enemies, blessed them with food, redeemed them from forced slaverym and just in general, took them under his wing.

Yes. To give an analogy - it does not matter if a man raises a child with tender loving care for ten years, housing her and feeding her, if he had sexually abused her for five.

Conveniently ignore those parts.

It is not that I ignore those parts. It is that I examine them and deem them to not be enough to get God 'off the hook' so to speak, for what the Bible says he's done.

Theism sure does, obviously.

Wrong. You need to give a succesful positive argument, in favour of the theistic position.
If you succesfully knock down atheism, you have only defeated the argument of 'I don't believe a god or gods exist'.
You have NOT defended the argument of 'I believe a god exists'.

It seems you have a lot to learn about debate.

Then perhaps those people have other reasons as to why they should be punished.

Why am I not surprised that you are nonchalant about people who are obviously not guilty of doing Action X nonetheless being actively punished for it?

Everything has its limits.

Such as the infinite God, I suppose?

What is wrong with that? If I want to tidy up my house, and I use my children to help in that regard..is that a problem? God is our Father, and we are his children...and he uses us to accomplish his will at times. Not because he needs to, but because he wants to...and we should fill honored to assist the Almighty.

Spoken like a true cult member.

Who said anything about discard?

The Noah Flood story, for one.

According to Judeo-Christianity, you know, MY religion...God never discards us, in fact, Christianity is based entirely on the fact that God DIDN'T discard us (you know, the Resurrection, perhaps?)

He seemed to have no problem letting the Israelites constantly being conquered by foreign powers.
Please, do not forget that I was myself once a Christian. It is likely that I am more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself.

Were you so busy focusing on ways to criticize God and the Bible, that you missed that fundamental principal regarding Christian theology?

You mean, the concept of Original Sin, that humanity is just so guilty of some nebulous sin committed by proto-ancestors, a sin so bad that a god man has to get nailed to a piece of wood in order to pay for it?

I said FORCED slavery was never sanctioned, permitted, ALLOWED.

What do you call a father selling his daughter then?

Ohh, I'm sorry...I didn't know that you, in your finite knowledge, could know the best course of action than the Almighty. My bad.

It's logic. The Almighty is by definition able to do anything. Therefore, there is no need so great that he has to order a specific tribe of humans to wage destructive war against another tribe of humans. Any end that would be favourable to the god that can be accomplished by the war can be accomplished by much less destructive means.

I would rather have what I think is an all powerful being tell me what to do, before I listen to the electrons/neutrons in a 3 lb chunk of matter (brain) telling me what to do.

Which is ultimately what you end up doing anyway. Your very ability to think is tied to that chunk of matter resting inside your skull. So in order to be able to parse God's instructions, you need electrons and neutrons to do it.

The difference is, when God changes, it is a change for the better, all the time.

A statement one can make only if they rig the examination in God's favour ahead of time.
I do not do that. I am able to see that when God 'changed' his religion from Judaism to Christianity, that hardly resulted in humanity being moved ahead. Unless you can quantify 'better', instead of leaving it as a vague word?

When human changes, it can be a change for the worse.

Yeah. So? This still means that when you talk about God and objective morality, you're actually describing subjective morality.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 421 by For_The_Kingdom]

That would depend, because it specifically states that if the MASTER gave his slave a wife and she bore him children, then the slave would leave after he fulfilled his six year obligation...but his wife and children would stay (Exodus 21:4).

This can be looked at as, since it is the master who gave the slave the woman to marry, then technically speaking, the woman/children is still the masters property and belonged to him.

How is this a defense for your position? You're still describing humans owning other humans as property.

No it isn't hostage taking. It is simple; either have a wife when you enter "slaveship" so that she can leave with you in seven years, or NOT accept a wife from your master until your slaveship ended in the seventh year. Plain and simple.

As you yourself so carefully note, the wife comes from the master. It isn't a case of the slave finding a woman on his own, courting her and asking her to marry him. More than likely, the slaves would have been forced to marry.
Also, this seven year rule only applied to Hebrew men. Not to non-Hebrews.

The rules are laid out, plain as day..this was the law and everyone was aware of it...and if anyone found themselves in that predicament, it isn't because of any hidden clauses or ignorance of the law.

Just like the law of not picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week, I suppose? Is this your outlook on law? If you violate it and get punished for it, tough cookies? No law is too onerous, or harsh, the law is the law, especially if its God law?

For the third time, I said that there was no FORCED SLAVERY sanctioned in the Bible by the Israelite's as designated by God. Exodus 21:16 states:Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death.

This does not rule out the buying of slaves. All the Hebrew buyer has to do is say "I honestly didn't know he had been stolen".

So this idea that you'd like to portray, such as God permitting the Hebrews to go through villages pummeling people and rounding them up and forcing them into a life of slavery is something that just didn't happen.

Except for the conquests of Joshua, and the wars during the time of the Judges, where we have Hebrew armies marching under the beck and call of God to destroy those whom God doesn't like, often to the point of complete extermination, except for the virgin girls.

Or he could simply wait until his slaveship was over to get married, or he could get married before he entered slaveship...and in each case he would remain with his wife and children.

Doesn't this strike you as absurd?

You are assuming that the daughter was sold as a slave AGAINST her will

Of course. Slaves do slavery only when they want to. Why didn't I think of that?

and the context of the subject matter is not about labor, but about marriage, as verse 9 indicates.

Of course. Wives are servants/slaves. The words are synonyms for each other. Can't believe I forgot that.

There is no Biblical evidence of forced slavery beyond prisoners of war.

I could quote verses at you...but of course, I'm the one morphing them, aren't I?

Please, you can make a inaccurate comment without having to flat out LIE to do so.

Where in the law regarding the purchase of daughters as slaves, does it make the master sleeping with her illegal?

Well, first of all, you have to prove that the daughter was forced into slavery, which the context does not imply.

The verse doesn't say she has any say in the matter. The verse says the father sells her. That indicates to me that the father owns the daughter, can do with her like he does any other piece of property. He wouldn't need to ask his donkey's permission before he sold it.

[Bust Nak]

No, I wasn't wrong. The question is "what is the cause?" (means, method, etc).

No it wasn't. The question was "can it potentially be explained without appealing to the supernatural."

Then abiogenesis is scientifically unverifiable and any acceptance of it as a natural theory is speculation at best.

Speculation based on scientific observation.

Why not?

Because it is illogical/irrational.

Actually, it was.

Incorrect. It was not.

I want observational evidence of abiogenesis.

Try going to a museum.

But that's not what I want. I want to see abiogenesis in action. I'm sorry for wanting observational evidence for natural occurrences.

You cannot see abiogenesis in action, but there are plenty of observational evidence for it - that's exactly what you will get when you ask for "Earth history related to abiogenesis."

[rikuoamero]

I want to see abiogenesis in action. I'm sorry for wanting observational evidence for natural occurrences.

It's strange, this dichotomy between beliefs and evidences. The theist believes supernatural things without having the evidence to show for it, but does not believe abiogenesis or evolution, despite the myriad tons of evidence in support of it.
Where's the evidence to show that animals were created in their current form? Can we see new creatures being created, as in, observe it happening?

[Clownboat]

"Where does life come from? Despite years of research, scientists still rack their brains over this most existential question."

Umm..yeah.

Derp! The answer is unknown, but to claim we have no evidence is just silly. Were you alive before you were born? If not, and you came from your parents like the rest of us, then you are an example of life coming from non-life.

As far as how life originally started, we have theories on that, but if anyone claims to know, they are lying from my experience. Do you 'know' how life first started?

The problem with that is; yeah, sure.. "if you make enough attempts and have enough time, you will eventually find every word in the English language".

That is not a problem.

Newsflash: There was only ONE big bang with our universe, and everything would have had to been in order from the moment of the event. There wasn't this "infinite attempts/infinite times" game of chance thing that you are indicating.

Please learn the difference between the big bang and evolution. Evolution is the process for changes in life. Life has had near infinite attempts for billions of years. What a big bang has to do with evolution is lost on me. Can you explain?

If we are going to give an ACCURATE depiction of the event, it would be like gathering all of these pieces of paper (with one letter from the English alphabet), and throwing them into the air, and for each piece to fall on the ground in alphabetical word sequence to create a perfect English sentence.

You made a false claim about getting order from chaos. It is time you own up to being wrong about your claim and time to amend your thinking.

Do you think that is gonna happen with on just one try? Nope.

Notice readers how theists go on complaining about evolution or the big bang when their argument is lost. He was provided an example of order from chaos, he cannot seem to address this, nor amend his thinking, but he sure can complain about evolution.

I'm not sure what work you want me to do for you here. Can you be more specific, or better yet, do the work on your own? Nevermind, it's easier to just claim a god did it.

Saying that god did it isn't any more easier than you claiming that "Mother nature" did it.

Once I have made such a claim, then and only then will it be prudent for you to complain about it. Do you have specific questions about evolution that you would like answers to? I warn you, verifying the source I supply will require work, unlike making the claim that a god did it.

Straw man. Who argues language came from muteness?
Even bacteria communicate so I'm at a loss as to what empty claim you are now making.

Is Mother nature mute? Can she talk?

I am not aware of this 'Mother Nature' you refer to. Please define her and show that she is real, or admit she is as real as your preferred god concept. I make no claims about some 'Mother Nature'.

Either way, why did you argue that language cannot come from muteness. Do you acknowledge that even bacteria communicate?

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, why do you claim that the universe came from nothing.

The first law of thermodynamics only comes into play after the universe began to exist. Because if it didn't, then you will run into a logical problem of if energy/matter has always existed (from past infinity), then how could our universe just began to exist only an finite time ago? Makes no sense.

Please explain to me why you find it impossible for all the energy to exist before the big bang, just in another form. By the way, I make no claims about the singularity, but I acknowledge possibilities because no one is forcing me to accept that a god did it.

Actually, no, that is not the case. The work is not done. First of all, I marvel at things like the Great Egyptian pyramids, at how those folks built the damn thing without any modern-day fork lifts, cranes, trucks, etc. I marvel at this DESPITE knowing that the pyramids were a result of intelligent designers/builders.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. If a person accepts an explanation that the gods did it (whatever 'it' happens to be at the time) then the work is done.

For example, you can could believe that the gods built the pyramids. If so, your work can be done. Or, you can put in some work and theorize ways that humans could have done it.

So it isn't "Well, intelligent builders built them, the work is done; everyone have a safe trip home". I am still fascinated by it and marvel at it.

THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT THE GODS BUILT THE PYRAMIDS! Unlike your take on how the earth and life got here. For that, you claim the gods and your work is done.

And despite my belief that Goddidit, I still marvel at the configuration and functionality of the human body. I still want to know how things work in nature, despite my theistic beliefs.

Marveling at the answer 'god did it' does not require any work. "Look at me work really hard on my claim that a god did it".

So basically, you are wrong in your assessment.

Sorry guy, but that will be up to each reader to determine.

Notice the dodge readers? Rather than acknowledge the logical argument being made, he would prefer to divert attention.

I used the same logic that you used against me, and applied it elsewhere on something that we all can relate to...so if my logic seems silly, then so should yours.

What?
"All the gods are false. Well, all but your own of course."
"All the women out there aren't my mother. Well, all women but my own mother of course."
Stop dodging please. Are all the gods false besides yours, or not? Feel free to ask me about my mother. See if I answer or make some dodge like you did.

No one argues that all women are their mothers, and no one argues that all "gods" are their gods. Same thing.

Great, now please address the actual question:
"Are all the gods false besides yours, or not?"

Who is ducking and diving?

You are!
"Are all the gods false besides yours, or not?"

Um.... I know this will go against what your holy book says, but animals actually cannot talk. Sorry.

Neither can a mute person. So I guess moral values/duties don't apply to them either, huh.

Are you lying, or have you actually never heard of sign language? Why another failed rebuttal on your part?

So the killing of animals is cool as long as it is for the purpose of filling your belly. Gotcha.

I don't recall making any claims about if killing animals is cool or not. I also don't remember judging anyone due to their eating or not eating of animals. This is unlike the claims that religious people make, so I don't understand your whine here.

Sure I agree but on naturalism, this "value" is subjective. Because Mother Nature could care less about human life or any other life. When a tornado sweeps through a vicinity, is it picking and choosing where to create havoc? Which houses to destroy? Which people to spare? No.

If you were attempting to make a point, please make it. Your not just whining/complaining about naturalism are you?

And I am saying that a genocidal god is equivalent to pest control.

They are not equivalent. For example, if I was an all powerful god, I would not require the use of bug zappers to kill off mosquitoes, or gassing all life in a home to get rid of cockroaches. The Bible portrays an ineffective, punishing god that committed genocide on an entire planet rather than say, making all the sinners infertile. The comparison is not equivalent.

Second, you are assuming that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason to commit genocide. You are in no position to make such judgements.

I judge your god concept to be a monster. Genocide is evil, whether Hitler does it or your god. You admitted this with the Eskimo example. I submit that making genocide OK is an evil that only religions and dictators can make.

Once you can show that you speak the truth, I'll be out there on the roof tops with you. Until then, shouldn't we do our due diligence and find out if the claims are even true or not?

Again, you reject the evidence...which you have every right to do..just like I have every right to accept.

Wait a minute. Do you claim to have actual evidence for your god concept? Please submit it for examinations. Complaining about evolution or a big bang will not count as evidence for your favorite god.

It isn't about the quantity...because any arbitrary number, as long as it is on the positive side, is enough for the point to be made.

What was the point then? I have killed flies, therefore a god can commit genocide on a global scale and that makes it OK?

Humans are animals.

I couldn't disagree more.

Well I supplied supporting information for my claim. That you couldn't disagree more is irrelevant. That you cannot refute my information is not.

"Modern humans (Homo sapiens, primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of Hominina tribe (or human tribe), a branch of the tribe Hominini belonging to the family of great apes."

I couldn't disagree more.

And that is because you accepted one of the many god concepts. Once you have done that, your work is done. Why study human biology if you believe you have the answer already? The gods are the easy explanation and they avoid having to do actual work.

The only reason to not accept this that I know of is because a human animal is using the reasoning of a human animals from thousands of years ago over the knowledge human animals now have.

Really? Like what?

Are you not aware that we have mapped the human genome?
Also: Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

It is you that is downplaying the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals that wind up on your dinner plate.

Once again he is comparing global genocide to eating a hamburger. It is truly terrifying to me that you do not understand the difference.

If you were suffering at the hands of your neighbors, would you want them killed off?
If you were hungry, would you want a neighbor to give you a hamburger?
Do unto others... and he is confused about the difference between genocide and eating a burger. Religious indoctrination at its best? "Genocide is OK, people eat burgers after all."

[For_The_Kingdom]

An example is NOT a definition. I honestly don't know how to be any clearer than that.

Its funny, because you suggested that I Google "Venn Diagram", yet you are asking for the definition of "sentient". I will tell you the same thing you told me: Google it.

Your contention is meritless, since the only examples of consciousness that you and I both agree exist come from objects made up of physical material i.e. animals.

And that is obviously from a set of conditions that are already in place. We only see what is happening now, and if you go back in time far enough, you will get to a point where there were no natural prerequisites in place...so the question is how do you get from non-sentient life, to sentient life?

Not only is science incapable of explaining how Mother Nature can do what intelligent human beings cant do, but when you actually consider what must have had to happen in order for things to take place, (thermodynamics, entropy, philosophical problems, etc), and you have no axe to grind, you will know that it couldn't have happened in the first place...not naturally.

No may be there, they ARE alive.

So is a "live" wire...but no one is going around saying that the wire is sentient. So are plants, but no one is going around saying plants are sentient. That is the point...I am talking about SENTIENT life, and you want to talk about everything but that.

Correct, because they lack many biological structures found in animals we know to be sentient.

Then why are we having this discussion?

I am not trying to come up with an exception. I am trying to make sure we are all speaking the same language (so to speak), trying to be as accurate and precise as possible. I tell you many times what I consider life and non-life to be, I tell you that we as living beings are made up of non-living particles yet every time I try to get you to talk about the subject, you jump ahead to talking about sentience/consciousness instead. You honestly sound to me like in your eyes, the box labelled 'living' has a requirement of 'sentience/consciousness' (whereas, my box doesn't).

Just because we are made up of non-living particles, are we any less sentient? You are living. A tree is also "living". The difference? Sentience. You have it, the tree doesn't. Big difference.

Can I get you to agree to the following two statements?
1) Humans are living things (consciousness/sentience not a requirement to be in category)

I agree. Consciousness is not required to be in the "living" category. But consciousness is required to be in the "sentient" category, doesn't it? And since one of my main arguments for theism is the argument from consciousness...that is what I am focusing on.

I am talking about specifically consciousness...conscious life.

2) Humans's physical structure is ultimately made up of particles that are themselves non-living i.e. carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus etc.

Ok, fine...but where does the consciousness come from? That is the question.

Because you keep talking about life cannot arise from non-life, and yet, the closest you have ever gotten to explaining yourself on that subject is talking about sentience/consciousness, which is jumping ahead.

First off, the statement "life cannot arise from non-life" is an accurate statement, point blank, period. I am only stating the facts. I don't even need to bring up consciousness to stress that point...however, I bring up consciousness to put the nail in the coffin...salt on the wound.

All life (that both you and I agree on that exists) is physical, made up of non-living particles. So clearly, life DOES arise from non-life, yet you never seem to acknowledge this point.

I don't know about you, but I come from sentient parents. So I am a product of sentient human beings with a living reproductive system in order to create me.

The sperm was "living"..the cells were "living"...and while those things weren't "sentient", the humans that they came from were...so regardless, you start with sentience (parents), and you send with sentience (me).

Where does the consciousness/sentience come from? Question still remains unanswered.

Notice that I am not talking about sentience/consciousness.

Then we are not on the same playing field.

I am talking about things that are alive, which can include life-forms with sentience or consciousness (but is not a requirement).

But if my question/contention is that sentient life cant come from non-sentient material, why are you talking about other stuff?

Have you googled them? Looked them up? It's really simple.

I will once you Google "sentience".

Evidence that I am constantly able to show is full of holes. Even if I could not refute the existence of this moral agent who reveals himself as Jesus Christ (speaking hypothetically here), how does that guarantee that his morals are correct, right?

I've already answered this.

If I were in your shoes, I would not make that leap. I would not make the leap from "I believe he resurrected" to "I trust whatever he says implicitly".

First off, my contention is that IF objective morality is true, then it can only stem from a necessarily existing moral agent who does not owe its existence to anything beyond itself. And, I just so happen to have evidence that such a moral agent exists. I don't believe this is a coincidence.

Second, I also have reasons to trust what someone says if I've found the person to be trustworthy. Third, the evidence for Resurrection can't be dismissed, because if such an event occurred, that would automatically slap naturalism right in the face...and such a person who rose from the dead would have my attention. Not to say that everything the person say is true, but hey, thats what faith is all about.

Thinking agents can lie. This is a fact, and there is no way to get away from it.

Well, if objective moral values/duties doesn't exist, then there is nothing objectively wrong with lying now, is there?

Do I need to quote that famous line from Thessallonians about God sending spirits to deceive?

Nope. It isn't that God told the spirits to "go out and deceive"...It could be that God allowed spirits that he knew were going to deceive, to deceive. Big difference.

Except examination of the evidence reveals that the Crip's member could have done something different. There is no physical requirement for him to shoot the man.

Well, the Crip's member made the decision that he thought was best for his survival. Because after all, a dead Bloods member won't be around to kill him any longer, would he? Sounds like a good decision to me.

A lion or some other carnivore who wants to survive to old age, mate and have progeny has no choice but to hunt and kill prey.

Um, the example I gave was of a lion killing a member of another pride. That doesn't have a dang thing to do with prey.

It's a far better method than judging[strike] Hitler[/strike] God by the standard[strike] Hitler[/strike] God himself gives you.

But if objective moral values doesn't exist then it doesn't really matter, does it?

My own standard. A standard developed over a life-time of observation.

So your standards are best for no one besides...you, correct? Well, that is you, and your standard is not one of objectivity.

I am at liberty to question the accuracy of any judgements I make using this standard.

Sure, as long as you admit it your judgements are subjective.

Can you say the same for yours? Can you say to me, honestly, that you are at liberty to question a moral judgement you believe God has made?

Yes, I can say to you that honestly, I am at liberty to question a moral judgement I believe God has made.

Should God get a free pass on moral evaluations/judgements? Automatic wins?

Depends, I need to know the objective standard first. I can't make any judgements on actions if I don't know the objective standard...and come to think of it, neither can you.

Yes. To give an analogy - it does not matter if a man raises a child with tender loving care for ten years, housing her and feeding her, if he had sexually abused her for five.

That also depends...whose to say that sexual abuse is wrong? Ok, so what if sexual abuse of children is legal, and a man sexually abused children? So, would sexual abuse STILL be wrong despite it being legal? If your answer is yes, then you believe in objective moral values.

But where does these values come from? These values cannot be founded in nature, because nature says nothing about morality, as it could care less. They would have to come from something beyond nature, otherwise I'd challenge you to tell me where your moral values come from (if they are objective).

And "they come from me" just won't get it done, sir.

It is not that I ignore those parts. It is that I examine them and deem them to not be enough to get God 'off the hook' so to speak, for what the Bible says he's done.

That is your opinion. I still need to know how is the standard that you are judging God, how is that the correct standard? What makes its truth value, true?

Wrong. You need to give a succesful positive argument, in favour of the theistic position.
If you succesfully knock down atheism, you have only defeated the argument of 'I don't believe a god or gods exist'.
You have NOT defended the argument of 'I believe a god exists'.

It seems you have a lot to learn about debate.

LOL.

Why am I not surprised that you are nonchalant about people who are obviously not guilty of doing Action X nonetheless being actively punished for it?

I have reasons to believe that I worship a fair God, and just because we, in our finite and limited mind capacity can't understand the "why" question as it relates to someone that may have been punished...that doesn't mean that God cant.

Your contention of "I don't know the reason, therefore, there is no reason" is fallacious.

Such as the infinite God, I suppose?

When we say God is infinite, we mean that his infinitude is that of quality, not quantity.

Spoken like a true cult member.

LOL. That did sound rather, "culty", didn't it? Hey, that is Christian Theology.

The Noah Flood story, for one.

What about it? How was it wrong on naturalism? In fact, how is ANYTHING morally right or wrong on naturalism.

He seemed to have no problem letting the Israelites constantly being conquered by foreign powers.

And the Israelites seemed to have no problem worshipping false gods, which is a slap in the face to the God that redeemed them from slavery. I would have been pissed, too.

Please, do not forget that I was myself once a Christian. It is likely that I am more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself.

LOL. Doubt it.

You mean, the concept of Original Sin, that humanity is just so guilty of some nebulous sin committed by proto-ancestors, a sin so bad that a god man has to get nailed to a piece of wood in order to pay for it?

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, I could either believe that "that humanity is just so guilty of some nebulous sin committed by proto-ancestors, a sin so bad that a god man has to get nailed to a piece of wood in order to pay for it"

or, I can believe that..

"13.7 billion years ago, the universe began to exist from literally nothing, and began to expand..and with this expansion came the rise of space, time, matter, and energy. And for some reason unbeknown to mankind, this dead matter that was floating around in preexisting space began to come to life..and not only did it come to life, but it began to think, see, listen, eat, and have sex."

I like the first one better.

What do you call a father selling his daughter then?

What does a father selling his daughter have to do with whether or not the daughter was willingly sold or voluntarily sold? Nothing.

It's logic.

Your logic.

The Almighty is by definition able to do anything.

*Anything that is logically possible.

Therefore, there is no need so great that he has to order a specific tribe of humans to wage destructive war against another tribe of humans. Any end that would be favourable to the god that can be accomplished by the war can be accomplished by much less destructive means.

LOL. There was no need according to who? You? A finite human being with limited knowledge and presence, who can barely see the beginning/end of the day, let alone the beginning/ending of the world? Sure, you have all of the answers.

Tell ya what, on judgement day, when you stand before the Almighty, you will have ample opportunity to tell God how much better he could have done things.

Which is ultimately what you end up doing anyway. Your very ability to think is tied to that chunk of matter resting inside your skull. So in order to be able to parse God's instructions, you need electrons and neutrons to do it.

Sure, with the electron and neutrons that he gave me.

A statement one can make only if they rig the examination in God's favour ahead of time. I do not do that. I am able to see that when God 'changed' his religion from Judaism to Christianity, that hardly resulted in humanity being moved ahead. Unless you can quantify 'better', instead of leaving it as a vague word?

By "better", I mean that whatever God orchestrates, it is to accomplish his will, and his will is for the better. So if God chooses to slap the shiznit out of me, it is for the better. If God chooses to have me stumble across a suitcase full of money, it is for the better.

I know, too much Christian theology for your naturalistic eyes to feast upon, right?

Yeah. So? This still means that when you talk about God and objective morality, you're actually describing subjective morality.

Either objective morality exists, or it doesn't exist...and both options have certain implications. If it does exist, then it can only be founded by a personal moral agent (lawgiver). If it doesn't then conversations about moral right/wrongs are essentially worthless.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Derp! The answer is unknown, but to claim we have no evidence is just silly.

We have no good, adequate evidence that life came from nonliving material.

Were you alive before you were born? If not, and you came from your parents like the rest of us, then you are an example of life coming from non-life.

My parents were living when I was born, and 9 months prior to that. Yup, life from life.

As far as how life originally started, we have theories on that, but if anyone claims to know, they are lying from my experience. Do you 'know' how life first started?

Sure. Gen 1:26-27.

That is not a problem.

Of course it is.

Please learn the difference between the big bang and evolution. Evolution is the process for changes in life. Life has had near infinite attempts for billions of years. What a big bang has to do with evolution is lost on me. Can you explain?

The Big Bang is impossible on naturalism. And without the Big Bang, there is no life...and if there is no life, there is no evolution. Catch my drift?

You made a false claim about getting order from chaos. It is time you own up to being wrong about your claim and time to amend your thinking.

I thought the analogy that I gave, you know, the one that you just skipped over in order to make the above statement..was accurate...and if you feel it wasn't accurate, please explain why.

Notice readers how theists go on complaining about evolution or the big bang when their argument is lost. He was provided an example of order from chaos, he cannot seem to address this, nor amend his thinking, but he sure can complain about evolution.

SMH.

Once I have made such a claim, then and only then will it be prudent for you to complain about it. Do you have specific questions about evolution that you would like answers to? I warn you, verifying the source I supply will require work, unlike making the claim that a god did it.

Wait a minute, so you don't take the position that Mother Nature is the source of everything that exists?

I am not aware of this 'Mother Nature' you refer to. Please define her and show that she is real, or admit she is as real as your preferred god concept. I make no claims about some 'Mother Nature'.

Mother Nature = natural occurrences. SMH.

Either way, why did you argue that language cannot come from muteness. Do you acknowledge that even bacteria communicate?

SMH.

Please explain to me why you find it impossible for all the energy to exist before the big bang, just in another form.

Because that is not how entropy works. There was only one big bang, and everything would have to begin with low entropy...the low entropy would have had to been an initial condition...but we know that this could not have been the case because that is not how entropy works in nature.

Second, you have the good ole "infinite regression" problem. If the conditions for the big bang to occur had existed for past eternity, then why would the universe only begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago? Why not sooner? Why not later?

Makes no sense.

By the way, I make no claims about the singularity, but I acknowledge possibilities because no one is forcing me to accept that a god did it.

No one is forcing you to accept that nature did it, either. So at best, your position should be agnosticism, and if it is...I'd like to see you apply all of that built-up energy arguing against naturalistic claims as you do theistic claims.

But do I think that is gonna happen? No.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. If a person accepts an explanation that the gods did it (whatever 'it' happens to be at the time) then the work is done.

Went over your head. Never mind.

For example, you can could believe that the gods built the pyramids. If so, your work can be done. Or, you can put in some work and theorize ways that humans could have done it.

Or I can acknowledge that the ultimate source of the stone blocks come from God, while also acknowledging that it was humans that actually did the building.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT THE GODS BUILT THE PYRAMIDS! Unlike your take on how the earth and life got here. For that, you claim the gods and your work is done.

But you do realize that I believe the ultimate source of the "stuff" needed to build the pyramids came from God, right?

Marveling at the answer 'god did it' does not require any work.

Then neither does the answer "nature did it".

Sorry guy, but that will be up to each reader to determine.

LOL.

What?
"All the gods are false. Well, all but your own of course."
"All the women out there aren't my mother. Well, all women but my own mother of course."

Exact...same...CONCEPT.

Stop dodging please. Are all the gods false besides yours, or not?

Not only are all God's false but my own, but according to Occam's Razor...there is no need to posit other "gods" when only one is needed to produce the effect (creation of the universe).

Are you lying, or have you actually never heard of sign language?

Wait a minute, you were the one who said that animals can't talk...since you want to mention sign language, well, animals can talk...they communicate...the body language that your dog gives you when you come home can be considered "sign language". Growling, chirping, barking, purring...all are forms of communication.

My point is simple; the only way for verbal speech to ever get off the ground is for humans to start with a common language. If you speak Chinese, yet you can't speak or understand a lick of Arabic...and you meet an Arab man who speaks Arabic and can't speak a lick of Chinese, and you and the Arab man are the only people in the world, do you ever think you both will get to a point where you will share a "common" language?

No. It aint happening.

I don't recall making any claims about if killing animals is cool or not.

It is called "implication".

I also don't remember judging anyone due to their eating or not eating of animals.

The point is, we are animals and animals kill each other (on naturalism)...and nature has nothing to say about whether killing someone is right or wrong.

If you were attempting to make a point, please make it. Your not just whining/complaining about naturalism are you?

I am simply attacking your worldview like you attack mines.

They are not equivalent. For example, if I was an all powerful god, I would not require the use of bug zappers to kill off mosquitoes, or gassing all life in a home to get rid of cockroaches. The Bible portrays an ineffective, punishing god that committed genocide on an entire planet rather than say, making all the sinners infertile. The comparison is not equivalent.

I am still trying to figure out how/why killing is wrong on naturalism.

I judge your god concept to be a monster. Genocide is evil, whether Hitler does it or your god. You admitted this with the Eskimo example. I submit that making genocide OK is an evil that only religions and dictators can make.

Again, I am still trying to figure out how/why killing is wrong on naturalism.

Wait a minute. Do you claim to have actual evidence for your god concept? Please submit it for examinations.

See my posts.

What was the point then? I have killed flies, therefore a god can commit genocide on a global scale and that makes it OK?

So what is the difference in between killing a fly and a human being, on naturalism?

Well I supplied supporting information for my claim. That you couldn't disagree more is irrelevant. That you cannot refute my information is not.

LOL.

And that is because you accepted one of the many god concepts.

With good reason.

Once you have done that, your work is done. Why study human biology if you believe you have the answer already? The gods are the easy explanation and they avoid having to do actual work.

So you are telling me that it is impossible for me to marvel at the human anatomy while at the same time acknowledging that an intelligent designer was behind it? False.

Are you not aware that we have mapped the human genome?

Are you not aware that anything relating to genetics presupposes chemical fine-tuning, which implies intelligent design?

Also: Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years.

When you find a fossil and you determine anything besides "hmmm, this once living organism has been dead a long time", you are allowing your presuppositions to interpret the evidence for you.

Seeing a fossil says nothing about evolution...not to mention the fact that you don't have a complete fossil "chain" of any existing organism.

"Not only do we have a missing link, but the entire chain is missing".

Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Sure, humans that lived in caves. Cave dwellers. People live in caves today. So what? That mean that they evolved from Java Man?

Once again he is comparing global genocide to eating a hamburger. It is truly terrifying to me that you do not understand the difference.

There is no difference. An animal death is an animal death.

If you were suffering at the hands of your neighbors, would you want them killed off?

I might.

If you were hungry, would you want a neighbor to give you a hamburger?

Yup.

Do unto others... and he is confused about the difference between genocide and eating a burger. Religious indoctrination at its best? "Genocide is OK, people eat burgers after all."

On naturalism, why is any killing wrong. I still don't have an answer yet.