Life from Non-Life?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Life from Non-Life?

Post #1

Post by liamconnor »

The Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a strictly naturalistic framework: life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced (i.e. from outside) into nature (i.e. a miracle).

How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Life from Non-Life?

Post #11

Post by Monta »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 5 by McCulloch]
Correction: we don't know yet how life could spring from natural causes.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Liam's attitude here is like someone declaring in the year 1700 that flight quite simply cannot be achieved via naturalistic means and therefore...there must be divine shenanigans going on.
Fast forward to the year 1783, and that person has egg on their face when Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier and François Laurent d'Arlandes performed the first hot air balloon ride.
We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.

For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.

Swedenborg 1714 Flying Machine - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedenbor ... ng_Machine
Swedenborg's Flying Machine was first sketched by the Swedish scientist Emanuel Swedenborg in 1714, when he was 26 years old. It was later published in his ...
‎The published account · ‎Technical description

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Life from Non-Life?

Post #12

Post by Kenisaw »

liamconnor wrote: The Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a strictly naturalistic framework: life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced (i.e. from outside) into nature (i.e. a miracle).

How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?
Your premise is rejected because Anthony is claiming that life "had to be introduced into nature". As there is no evidence for this claim, there is no reason to consider it true or valid. I would respond to the person by telling them they are reaching a conclusion by accepting speculation as fact.

Your OP is basically a version of the "life must come from previous life" argument, which is entirely self defeating anyway. If life must come from previous life, where did gods come from? It's at this point that cultists claim that the god life did not need to come from previous life, which immediately invalidates the claim that life must come from previous life. Apply Occum's Razor (which you've been so found of recently in the Christianity and Apologetics threads) and obviously the simpler solution is life happening without a more complex god creature being involved...

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Life from Non-Life?

Post #13

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 11 by Monta]
For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.
A model isn't the same as a full scale machine capable of flight.
We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.
That's precisely it. Scientists DON'T think this. We CAN send people to Jupiter...there's just problems with the distance, and keeping them alive long enough to get there.
Liam's attitude, as I said before, is "We can't do this now, therefore it HAS to be divine", all the while, similar situations played out in the past and it turns out it could eventually be figured out naturally.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Life from Non-Life?

Post #14

Post by Monta »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 11 by Monta]
For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.
A model isn't the same as a full scale machine capable of flight.
We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.
That's precisely it. Scientists DON'T think this. We CAN send people to Jupiter...there's just problems with the distance, and keeping them alive long enough to get there.
Liam's attitude, as I said before, is "We can't do this now, therefore it HAS to be divine", all the while, similar situations played out in the past and it turns out it could eventually be figured out naturally.
The thing is, everything starts with an idea as in Swedenborg case. Religion had nothing to do with it, he did not leave it to the divine as yu insist.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Life from Non-Life?

Post #15

Post by rikuoamero »

Monta wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 11 by Monta]
For the record, it was Swedenborg, a highly spiritual/religious man and inventor
who built a model for the first flying maching.
A model isn't the same as a full scale machine capable of flight.
We can also say that man can not transport himself to Jupitar via naturalistic means.
Hardly think that scientists bring divine into it.
That's precisely it. Scientists DON'T think this. We CAN send people to Jupiter...there's just problems with the distance, and keeping them alive long enough to get there.
Liam's attitude, as I said before, is "We can't do this now, therefore it HAS to be divine", all the while, similar situations played out in the past and it turns out it could eventually be figured out naturally.
The thing is, everything starts with an idea as in Swedenborg case. Religion had nothing to do with it, he did not leave it to the divine as yu insist.
I think we're talking past each other. I don't know what this Swedenborg person thought, the person I am insisting is leaving it to the divine is liam, who in a hypothetical example that I thought up would be like living in the year 1700 not knowing how to fly or how to build a flying machine and insisting that the reason birds can fly is ONLY because of divine intervention, that flight quite simply cannot be done naturally or replicated by men...only for our 1700's liam to look like an idiot when some men fly into the sky in a hot air balloon, and all with no god to help them.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Life from Non-Life?

Post #16

Post by Bust Nak »

Monta wrote: The thing is, everything starts with an idea as in Swedenborg case. Religion had nothing to do with it, he did not leave it to the divine as yu insist.
I think you are missing our point, we know religion had nothing to do with it, scientists shouldn't leave it to the divine. That's precisely where Anthony Flew went wrong.

Post Reply