Origins and Science

167 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture
@Alain

@Alain
Are you trying to say there is a god? If so, then provide objective evidence that one exist.

Alain's picture
To know God we need to become

To know God we need to become a black belt with all the 10 dan so to speak.
Most of us are not even a white belt so why worry about the very last stage in human evolution?

I do believe in God but to say that I know much about him-her would be a speculation.
My object is to go step by step and one day I hope I will get there.
In the meantime I only deal with what I can understand.

arakish's picture
Alain: "To know God we need

Alain: "To know God we need to become a black belt with all the 10 dan so to speak."

WTF? This ain't a class at Cobra Kai.

Alain: "Most of us are not even a white belt so why worry about the very last stage in human evolution?"

WTF? "so why worry about the very last stage in human evolution?" I ain't because I won't be here to even worry about it.

Alain: "I do believe in God but to say that I know much about him-her would be a speculation."

And I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster trumps your sky faerie.

Alain: "My object is to go step by step and one day I hope I will get there."

Following the Yellow Brick Road?

Alain: "In the meantime I only deal with what I can understand."

Which ain't much.

rmfr

algebe's picture
@Alain: Even a stone has

@Alain: Even a stone has consciousness which she can not express

Stones have gender? Or are you just using French grammatical gender ("la pierre")? In English a stone is definitely "it".

Alain's picture
Agree, my mistake.

Agree, my mistake.

Philos_Tone's picture
Hi. I'm new. I can't really

Hi. I'm new. I can't really follow this that well.

But has anyone said that life seems impossible, because I don't think a beginning can legitimately be defined.

Cognostic's picture
No one is denying a beginning

No one is denying a beginning around here and no one is asserting a beginning either. FACT IS - no one knows - When I say "KNOW" I mean with certainty. What we do know is that the elements of life - amino acids - can come from inorganic matter. What we do know is that there is no evidence at all for the existence of a God or gods. Magical flying sky daddy is just a made up story with no more evidence supporting it than magical Santa Clause, magical leprechauns, or magical blue universe creating bunny rabbits. FACT - NO one knows... Any assertion at all about the origin of life needs evidence.

There are many competing theories.
Life from clay.
Life from volcanic vents.
Life from lightening spark.
Life from sulfur pools.
Life from asteroids or meteorites.
And others.

What we KNOW from studying extremophiles is that life has a way of happening in some to the most uninhabitable places we could ever imagine. Life in the radioactive water of Nuclear Generators for example. Life without sunlight under the Arctic ice. Life without oxygen, Life in acid, and so much more. Life is not what we think it is.

Silicone based life form
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/silicon-based-life-may-be-more-just...

This universe is really bizarre and life is just not what we think it is. How it got here is anyone's guess but there are a hell of a lot more facts leading up to any of the theories listed above than there are to a magical creator being.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
Thanks for that article Cog.

Thanks for that article Cog. It was a really good read.

Sheldon's picture
"has anyone said that life

"has anyone said that life seems impossible"

Life is axiomatically possible.

Cognostic's picture
Philos_Tone: If you are

Philos_Tone: If you are referring to Alain, don't worry you are not alone. She is making no sense at all.

David Killens's picture
@Philos_Tone

@Philos_Tone

The fact that there is life negates your statement. We may not know the instant life began, but it sure had a beginning.

Philos_Tone's picture
Yes, I am actually 100%

Yes, I am actually 100% certain that their God is not real. I simply use their impossible definition as proof. One guy creating everything, being all-powerful, etc., is not possible. Period.

Sheldon's picture
Not only is 100% certainty an

Not only is 100% certainty an epistemological impossibility, when someone asserts they are 100% certain they are declaring themselves to be as closed minded as it is possible to get.

I don't believe any deity or deities exist, because no objective evidence has ever been demonstrated for one. What is more it is an objective fact that human beings create fictional deities, and build religions around that belief. I don't need certainty to disbelieve something, a lack of sufficient evidence will do, once there is sufficient objective empirical evidence I am inclined to believe something. The pinnacle of scientific explanations achieve this, and these are scientific theories.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Philos and Alain

Re: Philos and Alain

*sniff.... sniff-sniff.... sniff*..... Ugh. Me smellum sock puppet.... *sniff-sniff*... But smellum like used dirty diaper. Not sock....

Cognostic's picture
LOL - That position requires

LOL - That position requires evidence. If you make the assertion that there is no god, you have to prove it. That is the way assertions work.

What you want to say is that you are 100% certain that you do not believe in god. You may base that belief on the impossibility of proof. "All arguments for the existence of god have been utterly and completely fallacious and of course debunked.

Unless you are well versed in apologetics you probably do not want to try to prove there is no god. The antitheist position rewires evidence or at least a very good argument regarding the lack of evidence.

Philos_Tone's picture
Can you not prove it by using

Can you not prove it by using what we know is is true? We know it is impossible to create yourself, and everything else, from nothing. That is proven fact. Therefore their god is not real. It seems like proof to me.

LostLocke's picture
We know it is impossible to

We know it is impossible to create yourself, and everything else, from nothing. That is proven fact.

Ehh. It's an assumption, not a proven fact.
And it's beginning to look like that may not actually be the case at all.

Cognostic's picture
No. That is not a proven

No. That is not a proven fact. We have no example of nothing anywhere. There is no such thing as nothing and so you can say nothing about it with 100% accuracy. THERE IS NO FACT about anything called "nothing." You don't get to make false assertions any more than the Christians get to make false assertions. That's just how logic and reason work.

Sheldon's picture
I don't think you know what

I don't think you know what proven fact means, as you seem to be throwing the phrase around like Justin Bieber on his first night in prison.

If you are going to claim a deity does not exist as a proven fact you cannot extrapolate it from other unevidenced claims, simply by asserting they also are proven facts.

You may say we don't know if something is possible or not, you may not say it is impossible without first defining what a deity is and how it is claimed to have created everything. No theist or religious apologist has even remotely done this that I am aware of. Thus I don't believe the claim, but I cannot assert whether it is possible or not, let alone claim it's impossibility is a "proven fact", This just sounds like runaway hubris to me sorry. In fact it is the kind of unevidenced hubris that theists and religious apologists so often are guilty of using.

Philos_Tone's picture
Can you not prove it by using

It seems pointless, too, to talk about how life started. If you say that life came from clay, for example, you have to also ask where the clay came from. And, that goes on and on to no avail.

But it certainly makes things quite a bit more strange, unbelievable, and dare I say mystical.

:D

:D

Cognostic's picture
It makes no difference where

It makes no difference where the clay came from in regards to the origin of life. None at all. The clay was here for billions of years before life. You do not have to ask were it came from to understand the emergence of life. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. Life is possibly 4 billion years old. The oldest animals may be sponges and they are aged at 660 million years ago. The oldest human species logs in at
1.8 to 1.3 million years ago. No one needs to know ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT CLAY to discuss where life came from. It makes perfect sense to discuss any of the theories above and no sense at all to talk about a magical creator being who took 13.8 billion years to make a man. (NOW THAT IS JUST STUPID.)

Sapporo's picture
Wait...the OP is saying that

Wait...the OP is saying that God was created?

Cognostic's picture
Of course God, all gods, were

Of course God, all gods, were crated.... out of the minds of men.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Algebe - Do you consider the

Algebe - Do you consider the Earth to be an isolated system?

lukew0480 - absolutely, it's called the atmosphere

@lukew0480
You've already mentioned sunlight and photosynthesis several times in relation to life on Earth. If you want to treat the Earth as an approximately closed system for calculating the change in entropy, we need to include that sunlight.

Cognostic's picture
Absolutely nothing penetrates

Absolutely nothing penetrates atmosphere we are a completely closed system, well, except for the gamma rays. Only the gamma rays can penetrate the atmosphere of the earth. Just gamma rays and ... well ..... ultraviolet waves of light energy. But aside from the gamma rays and the ultraviolet waves of light energy nothing at all penetrates the earth's atmosphere aside from an occasional meteorite. Yes, okay, some meteorites have come from the deepest regions of space and had life shattering consequences for this planet and may even be the cause of life on this little isolated system but aside from the meteorites, the ultraviolet waves of light, the gamma rays and the infrared waves of invisible heat, nothing can penetrate this closed system that is protected by the atmosphere. That's it and nothing more. Just gamma rays, meteorites, ultraviolet waves of light energy, infrared waves of invisible heat, and neutrinos. Yea that's right, I nearly forgot the neutrinos. They come down and pass right through us and right through the earth and we have no idea if they have any sort of effect so we can basically ignore them in this little closed system of ours. So aside from the gamma rays, meteorites, ultraviolet waves of light energy, infrared waves of invisible heat, and neutrinos, NOTHING can penetrate this protective shield of atmosphere around our planet unless it is just common space dust. Every day, dust from meteorites, comets, and other 4.6 billion-year-old pieces of our solar system fall into the earth's atmosphere. But dust is not harmful so it really does not count. We are still a closed system where only gamma rays, meteorites, ultraviolet waves of light energy, infrared waves of invisible heat, neutrinos and space dust penetrate out atmosphere along with a few x-rays. Yea there are x-rays out there and they come through here but we don't really notice them so we can just set them aside along with the gamma rays, meteorites, ultraviolet waves of light energy, infrared waves of invisible heat, neutrinos, and space dust .... and solar radiation too. Don't forget solar radiation. Solar radiation can pop right on through that atmosphere and visit for a short time. But aside from the gamma rays, meteorites, ultraviolet waves of light energy, infrared waves of invisible heat, and neutrinos, common space dust, solar radiation and a bunch of other stuff. We live in a frigging closes system and nothing can get to us.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Oh, I wonder if this line of

Oh, I wonder if this line of thought of the OP will be that the sun is within 'the firmament'?

The_Quieter's picture
'2nd Law'

'2nd Law'

You should probably be aware that religious people trying to use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is one of those things that everyone here has seen knocked out of the park for a decade or more in most cases and it usually ranks pretty high on the 'top 10 bad religious arguments'

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system. Our planet and all things on it are not a closed system. Everything trending towards entropy in the end does not mean that due to the extreme levels of energy in the universe that things that seem to go 'against' entropy can't happen.

DNA requiring 'intelligence' is also another amusing one. If you want to look at DNA and say that it was done the way it is on purpose then you are saying that the being responsible is pants on head retarded. DNA strongly reflects precisely what it is, a product of evolutionary processes that has to work with what it has in order to work.

You're literally attempting a bunch of trite nonsense and presenting it like it's some sort of new revelation when in reality it's crap we've seen a thousand times before.

Sheldon's picture
http://www.atheistrepublic
David Killens's picture
@lukew0480

@lukew0480

"Everything that has life, contains intelligence"

This may take a very long time working through this post.

You assert that all life has intelligence. Please prove. A simple bacteria does not posses intelligence.

Sheldon's picture
If my instincts are on the

If my instincts are on the money here, then we are about to see the definition of the word intelligence violated "like a drag queen at a tractor pull".

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.