Abiogenesis anyone?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

"I don't know" is an honest answer.

I couldn't agree with you more on this point. What I fail to understand is why "I don't know" is ok for some people, but not ok for others. You have said in this thread, and in others, that you are not afraid to admit when you don't know something, I think that's a very admirable trait. So if it's ok for YOU to admit that you don't know something, but that someone else may have those answers, or that we as a race might discover the answers at some point in the future, why is it wrong if *I* admit that I don't understand everything about the nature of God? If you ask me a question, and I admit to not knowing the answer or being able to explain things in a way that you will accept as valid, is it really fair for you to then say "See, you DON"T KNOW! How can you claim to know about God when you don't even know the answer to my question" (please understand that this is not a direct or indirect quote, it is just a hypothetical.)

Where I see the BIG difference is claims made. Even though you don;t want it mentioned, the reality is this discussion is based on whether there are proofs for Abiogenesis with the underlying theme of if it can't be proved "therefore god". You very specifcally make that set up yourself.

I generally start by asking myself "If there isn't a God...

This particular god belief is well defined as it is based on a book written some 1600 years ago which is claimed by it's followers to be (at conflicting levels of degree) the PERFECT inspired word of this all powerful being/ god.

 

So if we look at the question of "Where did life come from?" and one answer is science based Abiogenesis and we don't have any particular strongly supported theoretical process as the leading front runner, then "I don;t know" would be the only honest answer. And thus acceptable.

 

However if the alternative is promoted, Creationism, it is WRITTEN DOWN in a BOOK. We can look at the specific claims made and ask for proof. We can expect as strong of evidence as we do strength of adherance. As Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[IrishEyes]

quote:

I start off at the assumption that there is a God,

 

 

And that is a major Fallacy. It will ALWAYS stop you from reasoned, logical thinking.

 

Ok, I guess what I'm faliling to see, or maybe I'm just not getting, is HOW questioning whether or not there is a God is stopping me from reasoned and logical thinking?

 

Or is it that I'm questioning how we got here by starting out at "if there is not a God" that bothers you? If that's all it is, then you can disregard the first part of MY question. But all that does is slightly modify the question, not answer it. How does that help bring reason and logic?

[IrishEyes]

 

Irish: but if I'm wrong,then what is the true explanation for everything in the world.

FreeT: It EXISTS. What other "explanation" are you looking for?

 

Now I know I'm not making my questions clear. Or you are being very literal while I am being very figurative? Not sure how to close this gap, but I'm looking for your help on this one...

 

Yes, the world exists. Humans are here. Life happens, or at least 'life' is what we are calling it, right? Still not quite sure where we drew that line, but it doesn't matter for the moment.

 

We just happened and there is no purpose to anything? That's your answer?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Or is it that I'm questioning how we got here by starting out at "if there is not a God" that bothers you? If that's all it is, then you can disregard the first part of MY question. But all that does is slightly modify the question, not answer it. How does that help bring reason and logic?

First it is not a matter of what "bothers me". We are not discussing "Things that bother Freethinker". We are discussing how to have a logical reasoned approach to evaluation of things.

 

If you start oout by including or rejecting non-proven things you increase the possibility of ending up at an incorrect result. That is why I also disagree that Unc or I (and...) start by REJECTING a god as part of the thought process. It just doesn't enter into it because we come to viable solutions before a need for one arrives.

 

e.g. we often hear as proof of a god that we can't see air. It's been brought up on this site numerous times as proof. "The sky is a beautiful blue, therefore god".

 

But if we want an accurate answer to why the sky is blue, we don't need to start with "If there is no god, why is the sky blue?" It forces us to first deal with an issue that is not only totally irrelevant to the question, until it is shown otherwise, but is not proven (that there even IS a god) in the first place.

 

Therefore as my earlier description of the fallacy indicates, the intial premise (assumption that there is a god to first work AROUND) is not viable in itself. And further distracts from the ACTUAL issue.

[IrishEyes]

Irish: I wish that the daily questioning of abiogenesis WOULD lead to some more definitive answers, even if those answers supported abiogenesis and ruled out an outside agent for creation (God). At least that would put an end to some of the questions.

FreeT: So if we can not PROVE abiogenesis in the next few days, right here in this thread, then GOD does exist?

 

How nice of you to finally understand...

(geez, that was a joke already!!)

 

NO, FreeT, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't think I even hinted at that, and you're playing with my words. I don't expect that this thread or any other thread will prove much of anything. I think that these threads are a great way to share information. I think that these threads are an incredible way to expose people to new ideas. I think that these threads are a fun and safe way to 'meet' people that you would probably normally never get the chance to know. I think that these threads can open people's minds to different thought patterns, if the person is open to learning. But I do not think that anyone in these threads will solve the question of abiogenesis, or explain exactly if/how evolution occurred, or reveal whether or not God or Allah or Ba'al really exist.

[IrishEyes]

Where I see the BIG difference is claims made. Even though you don;t want it mentioned, the reality is this discussion is based on whether there are proofs for Abiogenesis with the underlying theme of if it can't be proved "therefore god". You very specifcally make that set up yourself.

 

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

 

How can I say it any other way than "FreeT is WAY OFF BASE!!"

 

It has NOTHING to do with what I want mentioned. The "reality" is that this discussion is based on what people believe about abiogenesis. What different theories are represented and accepted by the people in this Forum. There is NO NO NO underlying theme. How many different ways and times can I say/type that in a way that you will understand??? I do NOT very specifically make that set up myself. I have not said, one single time in this thread, that if you, or Unc, or Tormod, or Tele, or ANYONE else could not prove abiogenesis then that proved there is a God. NOT ONCE have I said that, nor have I implied that. It is REALLY PISSING ME OFF THAT YOU WON'T GET OFF THAT!!

 

I have not made any claims in this thread that lead to your reaction here. If you don't like the way I state a question, that's fine, thanks for sharing your opinion on my fallacy-filled thinking. However, do NOT insert your motives into my thread. It is not only frustrating, but also very offensive.

[IrishEyes]

So if we look at the question of "Where did life come from?" and one answer is science based Abiogenesis and we don't have any particular strongly supported theoretical process as the leading front runner, then "I don;t know" would be the only honest answer. And thus acceptable.

 

If we look at the question "Where did life come from?" and no answer can be proven, then there can be no other answer than "I don't know". I agree with you on this point. So WHY are other answers given? Yes, Christians claim "God did it", but the flip of that is that non-Christians claim "It just happened", NOT "I don't know".

 

eg... If 'schmoe' comes here to Hypography and asks "Where did life come from?" will you explain abiogenesis and then evolution, or will you simply post to 'schmoe' "I don't know"? If 'schmoe' asks "Where did life come from?", will I answer "In the beginning, GOD", or will I simply post to schmoe, "I don't know"?

[IrishEyes]

But if we want an accurate answer to why the sky is blue, we don't need to start with "If there is no god, why is the sky blue?" It forces us to first deal with an issue that is not only totally irrelevant to the question, until it is shown otherwise, but is not proven (that there even IS a god) in the first place.

 

Ok, i get this. thanks for putting it in this context. however, if someone is trying to come up with an alternative to creation, a way out of a God box, then why is it wrong for them to start off by saying "if God doesn't exist..." Isn't that the first step towards what you are trying to get people to see?

 

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if instead of trying to DISPROVE something (creation) I should be trying to prove something (abiogenesis). Would that be more correct?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

We just happened and there is no purpose to anything? That's your answer?

On a grand scheme of things. Yes. There is nothing to support the concept of a "purpose" for existence. It just does. Any individual desire to assert there is one, fails any solid substance.

 

I would be very interested to find any VALID proof to the contrary. Anything more than wishes and personal desires.

 

Meanwhile I am very satisfied to be able to give my own existence meaning. I find it far more satisfying than to accept some hateful monster waiting to send me to eternal torture if I should be misled by erroneous information it intentionally planted to allow it to do so, while leading a life which retards the positive advancement of society.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Still not quite sure where we drew that line,

Ah I see you are trainable Irish. I have used the "where do we draw the line" many times in various threads and now you are starting to include it in your posts.

[IrishEyes]

Ah I see you are trainable Irish. I have used the "where do we draw the line" many times in various threads and now you are starting to include it in your posts.

 

Your ego knows no bounds, FreeT. My children have heard this from birth, and they are much older than the 5 months of our wonderful relationship. "Drawing the line" is a VERY parental thing to do. Believe it or not, even people that are not freethought humanists are allowed to 'draw the line', in many different ways and in many different forums. Sorry, bud, you didn't coin that term...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

NO, FreeT, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't think I even hinted at that,

try

if those answers supported abiogenesis and ruled out an outside agent for creation (God)

and you're playing with my words.

Only because you are not physically close enough dear!

I don't expect that this thread or any other thread will prove much of anything.

I think they've proved that many people had not given enough "thought". nor bothered to gather enough evidence to support their claims and often the very personal philosphy they use to guide their very lives with.

I think that these threads are a great way to share information. I think that these threads are an incredible way to expose people to new ideas. I think that these threads are a fun and safe way to 'meet' people that you would probably normally never get the chance to know. I think that these threads can open people's minds to different thought patterns, if the person is open to learning.

I agree completely with you and find your last comment quite interesting. From someone that has specifically stated that NOTHING could change their mind on things of prime importance.

But I do not think that anyone in these threads will solve the question of abiogenesis, or explain exactly if/how evolution occurred, or reveal whether or not God or Allah or Ba'al really exist.

Most likely not. But we can identify that the claims made as to these mythical entities required involvement can and have been dispelled. And we have exposed the complete lack of credible support for their existence. Not that someone that is NOT "open to learning" would openly evaluate the subject.

[IrishEyes]

You need to watch it or you're going to throw your shoulder out from REACHING so far...

 

HOW does my statement "I wish that the daily questioning of abiogenesis WOULD lead to some more definitive answers, even if those answers supported abiogenesis and ruled out an outside agent for creation (God)." hint that I thnk/feel/believe/accept "So if we can not PROVE abiogenesis in the next few days, right here in this thread, then GOD does exist?"??????

 

You are trying, again, as usual, to put words into my mouth that I have not said. I'm sure you can think of a few other things to put in my mouth, but YOUR words do not belong there... Go ahead, make a really cute.crude reply, but make it WITHOUT tryint to claim that I said or implied something that I never said or implied.

 

When I typed:

I wish that the daily questioning of abiogenesis WOULD lead to some more definitive answers, even if those answers supported abiogenesis and ruled out an outside agent for creation (God).

 

it was in no way an indication that I was stating that if nobody in this Forum could prove abiogenesis in this thread within the next few days, then that proved that God exists. How you can jump from my statement of saying that I wished that the current daily questioning would lead to definitive answers (even if those answers supported abiogenesis) to saying that I implied that 'if you can't prove abiogenesis, then God' is so far beyond absurd that I'm *almost* speechless.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

There is NO NO NO underlying theme. How many different ways and times can I say/type that in a way that you will understand??? I do NOT very specifically make that set up myself. I have not said, one single time in this thread, that if you, or Unc, or Tormod, or Tele, or ANYONE else could not prove abiogenesis then that proved there is a God. NOT ONCE have I said that, nor have I implied that. It is REALLY PISSING ME OFF THAT YOU WON'T GET OFF THAT!!

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

If it's ok to keep asking questions, then why is it a problem if one of those quesitons is <u>"If life didn't come from a god,</u> where did life come from?"

I have not made any claims in this thread that lead to your reaction here.

See above

If you don't like the way I state a question, that's fine, thanks for sharing your opinion on my fallacy-filled thinking. However, do NOT insert your motives into my thread. It is not only frustrating, but also very offensive.

In this specific case, you ASKED how it would be more correct/ what difference it would make, in framing a reasoned logical question. I did that. If that was not what you wanted, why did you ask?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

If we look at the question "Where did life come from?" and no answer can be proven, then there can be no other answer than "I don't know". I agree with you on this point. So WHY are other answers given? Yes, Christians claim "God did it", but the flip of that is that non-Christians claim "It just happened", NOT "I don't know".

1) YOU are bringing up the god issue here.

 

2) I can't speak for how others respond. But "it just happened" is not MY answer. I can't even figure out WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE, much less to state that it just happened.

eg... If 'schmoe' comes here to Hypography and asks "Where did life come from?" will you explain abiogenesis and then evolution, or will you simply post to 'schmoe' "I don't know"?

Boy, that's a rough one, I don't know... :-)

 

Actually, I KNOW my response would involve going back to the question of drawing the line. I think overall that the line is arbitrary and have yet to have anyone get even close to resolving it.

If 'schmoe' asks "Where did life come from?", will I answer "In the beginning, GOD", or will I simply post to schmoe, "I don't know"?

Again, YOU brought up god (yet again!). And you have not shown a history of claiming you did not know, when a god answer exists.

 

But perhaps you are progressing?

[Freethinker]

We're crossing posts here. i just answer a post which I thought was based on this reponse from me and now I see a post referencing it...

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

however, if someone is trying to come up with an alternative to creation, a way out of a God box, then why is it wrong for them to start off by saying "if God doesn't exist..." Isn't that the first step towards what you are trying to get people to see?

First, there is a difference between a NEW someone coming here and trying to find "a way out of a God box" and a known Christer that admits they start questions with "if God doesn't exist..." asked how that could be done more logically.

 

B) it would depend on what comes after a new member asking "if God doesn't exist...". If it is a typical attack against the scientific stance, then it would be an agressive answer. If it was "I am trying to understand what factual alternatives there are "if God doesn't exist..." and why...". Then I would try a simple factual reply.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if instead of trying to DISPROVE something (creation) I should be trying to prove something (abiogenesis). Would that be more correct?

The "more correct" approach is to try to figure out the most accurate answer. Not to PROVE or DISPROVE, but to LEARN as many FACTS as possible.

 

Look at some of the topics, how they were structured.

 

"question: how the uncertainty principle works?"

 

Is not loaded in any direction.

 

Evolution VS. Creationism

(Evolution is dead wrong)

 

and

 

"Evolution is Junk Science and Secular Religion"

 

are obvious.

[IrishEyes]

We're crossing posts here.

 

Yes, I noticed that. Don't you have a job?? Get off the darned computer during working hours or I'm calling your son and telling on you!!

 

Actually, I've got some stuff to think about concerning the posts of this afternoon, and I will do that thinking before I post anymore in this topic. I need to get your stuff together and try to make some sense of it, as we are crossing things and it is confusing the heck out of me. I think we may be near the same place on some of these issues, but are both just too stubborn to see it.

 

Also, I still assert that there were no ulterior motives for this thread, and it does bother me that you keep insisting otherwise.