I don’t know what this means. What is atheism done properly?
Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You won't have any credibility until you stop degenerating into word games in which you depend completely on qualifiers to babble your way through a discussion.
You are the one who has no rational basis for claiming that life cannot come from non-life. Yes, your religion requires you to believe that only God can create life, and I get it. That is not a rational basis; it is an irrational basis.
I, on the other hand, do have a rational basis for believing that life came from non-life. I note that there is life in the present, and I speculate that there was no life at all at some point in earth's past. Guess what the only logical conclusion is. I'll give you three guesses.
You lose. I already addressed this. I gave you two modern real world examples. You opted to forfeit and to flee to the hills.
This is already covered in the life-from-non-life doctrine. If you have the latter, then you have the former.
In fact, all my sense evidence, obviously being superior to yours, shows that my rational basis is solid.
You've already forfetied once. You don't get to double-down on forfeting. An atheist is one who lacks any theism. You are an awfully slow learner, if you even can learn.
Not at all. You are now showing disrespect to all religions, including your own.
Are you now finally admitting that you do not believe in greenhouse effect?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Thank you.
you are too goddam stupid to waste time with
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are back to playing word games. You are using the word "irrational" incorrectly. Hint: it doesn't mean a woman on her period, nor does it mean a number that cannot be represented as a ratio of two integers. Learn what a "rational basis" means and incorporate it into your vocabulary.
Nope. Religion is unfalsifiable. You would do yourself a favor to learn what "irrational" means. Religion cannot be concluded by any combination of science and math.
Nope. One's religion is not because of any rational basis.
So you believe all those mutually supporting bodies of logical reasoning and claimed observation that point to Bigfoot? to the Chupacabra? to the Loch Ness monster? Don't you think it's sill to be beliebing in those things?
Now you're just conflating random things. I would like to know why you think there's a chemical difference between the chemistry of life and non-life.
Complexity and function in the case of single eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, and free will, sentience, conscience, and moral agency in sentient organisms.
The whole reason philosophy, psychology, and genetics exist as fields of scholarship is because people universally recognize a profound distinction between inert chemicals and complex biological life.
Ahh, so nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you felt there was some fundamental disconnect between non-life and life chemistry.
...God breathes life into chemicals. Same old Bible stuff.
Everyone else instinctively sees a difference between a water molecule and a carbon atom, and the complexity, function, and agency of living organisms.
We've been trying for 80 years in the lab to create biological cells from inert matter, without success.
Loch Ness monster and Big Foot are based largely on well known hoaxes and fabrications, not on logical deduction.
The cosmological argument and the teleological argument are based on reasonably sound and rational logical deductions, even if there is debate about how compelling they are.
Your claim was that religious belief is irrational.
Other than the fact that they are different chemicals, what is the foundational difference?
Interesting. There are a lot of complex non-life chemicals as well.
Just because humans haven't achieved something does not mean it doesn't happen in nature. Look at the sun (not directly) as an example: fusion exists in the universe. Humans have yet to create a self-sustaining fission reactor.
No they are not. They merely assume God exists and show what might follow.
AI will one day replace humans.
The Cosmological argument fails because it requires special pleading for God. It proposes that all things must have an origin but then proposes "God" which is independent of the requirement for the express purpose of proving God exists.
The Ontological argument fails because it assumes existence is not a predicate. Kant took this one out. Otherwise the Ontological argument is interesting and fun.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. Accounts of Loch Ness monster and Big Foot are based on observation (and photographs).
There you go with the layers of qualifiers again. Your posts are "No True Scotsman" fallacies.
Irrelevant. All that matters is what rational basis is being presented.
It absolutely is. You just need to learn what "irrational" means.
First, Kant is an idiot. However, Kant argues that existence is NOT a predicate.
Second, the 'ontological argument' was already shown to be bad logic by Aristotle. To exist is not proof of exist by necessity.
No one can say with certainty. That's why we have disciplines like philosophy, genetics, psychology, because everyone else in the world instantly recognizes there are currently inexplicable things about biological life that are not explained at the level of physics and chemistry.
There is nothing even remotely approaching the complexity and functionality of cellular life.
The assumption you seem to have is that chemistry disproves religious belief.
You're not even asking the question about where chemistry came from. This universe is extremely finely tuned to even allow matter to exist. There are a multitude of physical properties, mathematical constants, and scalar fields that all have to converge to a finely tuned framework for atoms to even exist.
That's either a remarkable random accident, or it's not.
I can. There is no difference. They are different chemicals. Both take part in life-related chemistry and a LOT of non-life related chemistry.
Carbon because of its self-catenation can create really neat complex chemicals, not all of which are life-related.
No, not really. Life is pretty bog-standard chemistry. I can tell you there is nothing "mystical" or magical or anything about life. It's just chemistry.
It's tempting to think of life as somehow "magical", but it isn't. Slog through a biochem class.
Wow. I never said anything even remotely like that. I don't know how it could "disprove" religious belief unless one's religion was founded solely on life somehow being completely different from non-life chemistry.
Huh?
And if it weren't then life wouldn't. Just because something exists does not mean it has some inevitability. A rain puddle shaped like Kazakstan is rare but that doesn't mean if I find one that it must have some creator god that made the universe to create this puddle.
You will never know. No one will. And since no one has any means of knowing or proving their point in that regard the best anyone can do is work with the things as they exist.
Even if they aren't magical and mystical and supernatural.
Nothing you wrote explains how inert chemicals spontaneously create cells, and how cells go to sentience, conscience, free will, moral agency.
Again, this is why I had to step back from atheism. It's too big a leap of faith for me to just wave a wand and just say that human consciousness and experience is just the result of the motion of electrons.
If love is based on the physical determinism of the motion of electrons, then you are just a meat robot. You cannot say that you freely choose to give your love to your mother, your spouse, your friends.