Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood Welcome to Volconvo, Century 25. You certainly picked a hell of a thread to post to first. :)

Amen to that, Ish! I laughed out loud when I read your comment! :)

[Century 25]

Thanks & hi Isherwood.. I too am a freethinking ATHEIST!

[Century 25]

Amen... :eek: :rolleyes:

[pikatore]

Quote by: KillerArgument Revision of my two basic premises, with more specific terms, and supporting statements: 1) "Strong atheism" ("There is no God"), is a position or view held by faith. Supporting logic: The reason the idea "There is no God" must be held by faith, if it is to be held at all, is because it is an ~unprovable~ idea.

In agreement. STRONG atheists commit to faith, because they believe in something that cannot be conclusively proven.

But heres a point. I say 'there are no unicorns'. That includes faith as well, right?

Quote by: KillerArgument 2) The idea that life originated from non-life is physically non-demonstratable and scientifically unproven. Additional logic: Therefore, something more than physical reality must have been present when life originated.

wrong. abiogenisis has been proven to be possible.

Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore there is evidence to support abiogenisis, and therefore physical reality is all that is required for life to originate.

Quote by: KillerArgument Please let me know if I have improperly represented your side: Atheist argument: Only the physical world exists. I see no evidence of God in the physical world. I have never seen God. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of your Imaginary Friend. I am sticking with the idea that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God. [This could be said to be true if it were true that only the physical world exists. -KA]

NO. I do not say outright that only the physical world exists. none of us ever said that. i say that i dont think a god exists, due to basically the reasons you put forward... though our argument is a bit more complicated than that, thats what it boils down to.

Quote by: KillerArgument Abiogenesis argument: There is nothing other than physical matter in the universe. Therefore, whatever happened in the beginning, God did not create life because only physical things exist, and logic proves that God does not exist. [These would be true statements if it were true and provable that only physical things exist, and if it were true that logic could prove either the existence or non-existence of God.-KA]

AGAIN, it would be ignorant of myself to say all that exists in our plane of existence is physical matter. How would nuclear fusion happen then? You get more energy out than you put in, hence the inconsistency of phyiscal matter being turned into something else.

Logic is the mechanism we use to decide what is real. I'm sure there will one day be a logical way to prove or disprove god, but for now, i'm sticking to the logical way of assuming there isnt a god by default, because if a magical man in the sky exists, than unicorns and fairies may exist as well, since there is as much evidence to support thier existence.

In this argument, it is very appropriate for atheists to place the burden of proof on the theists.

Put in a room a person who believes in unicorns, and one that doesnt, and forget logic or past experiances. The one who can conclusively prove that unicorns exist has to present evidence, which would be a unicorn. If that can't be done, than unicorns are assumed not to exist. Correct?

[Agnos]

A lot of important stuff said here in regards to the discussion at hand. Once the video ends, just wait, it'll start a new one.

Points of View with Daniel Dennett

[RickSp]

Here we go again.

There is no proof in the existence of God. None. Nada. Zip. That requires faith. Those of us who reject faith as a basis of belief do not, as ole' Killer keeps repeating, do so based on faith.

To claim that rejecting faith as a criteria for belief is itself an act of faith is the exactly equivalent of claiming that down is up, black is white and wet streets cause rain. And repeating the same nonsense over and over accomplishes nothing.

The claim that "strong atheism" requires faith, as opposed, I presume, to garden variety athiesm is also foolish. Strong atheism, so called, is merely an affirmative rather than a passively voice position. The burden of proof remains on those who believe in their imaginary friend rather than those who do not.

The rant about abiogenisis is equally silly. Except for the foolish fundie faction, most mainstream Christians have no issues with the idea that life came about through natural processes. Considerable progress has been made in understanding these natural processes, none of which need contradict anyone's doctrines or dogma except for thsoe whose antipathy for or ignorance of science resulte in the sorts of rants seen on this thread.

[Cephus]

Quote by: KillerArgument 1) "Strong atheism" ("There is no God"), is a position or view held by faith.

That may be true and I've always agreed that strong atheists are driven as much by faith as strong theists. Strong atheists are a tiny minority among all atheists though.

2) The idea that life originated from non-life is physically non-demonstratable and scientifically unproven.

Wrong. Not only is it demonstrable, it has been demonstrated through experiment. We can replicate protocells in the lab that are identical to the earliest found microfossils.

Additional logic: Therefore, something more than physical reality must have been present when life originated.

That's not logic, that's wishful thinking. Just because something is currently unproven, which isn't true, doesn't mean you can just invent an explanation willy nilly and pretend it must have happened. Your idea of "something more than physical reality" is also non-demonstrable and unproven.

[Cephus]

Quote by: pikatore But heres a point. I say 'there are no unicorns'. That includes faith as well, right?

Yes, that's true. I think the real issue is that many strong atheists, in saying "there are no god(s)" are really saying "there is no evidence to support the existence of god(s), therefore I see no reason whatsoever to think they are real".

I have no reason to believe in unicorns, therefore I don't. Certainly unicorns could exist on some far-off planet somewhere in the universe, but until I have evidence to support that conclusion, I will not believe.

[Zhavric]

1) "There are no invisible flying monkeys (IFM's)" , is a position or view held by faith.

Supporting logic: The reason the idea "No IFM's" must be held by faith, if it is to be held at all, is because it is an ~unprovable~ idea.

2) The idea that life originated from non-life is physically non-demonstratable and scientifically unproven. Additional logic: Therefore, something more than physical reality must have been present when life originated.

This is no different from going back a few centuries and stating "The idea that lightning originates naturally is physically non-demonstratable and unproven. Therefor, something more than physical reality (Zeus) must have been present when lightning originates."

God of the gaps reasoning has NEVER turned out to be accurate. It has been debunked over and over again nor is there any positive evidence for it.

As for the atheist stance, yes you have misprepresented it. If you've ever taken organic chemistry, you'd know that all our cells are formed from minerals, atoms and molecules.

Atheist argument: Only the physical world exists. I see no evidence of God in the physical world. I have never seen God. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of your Imaginary Friend. I am sticking with the idea that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God. [This could be said to be true if it were true that only the physical world exists. -KA]

Where is your evidence that anything exists beyond the physical world?

Abiogenesis argument: There is nothing other than physical matter in the universe. Therefore, whatever happened in the beginning, God did not create life because only physical things exist, and logic proves that God does not exist. [These would be true statements if it were true and provable that only physical things exist, and if it were true that logic could prove either the existence or non-existence of God.-KA]

Where is your evidence that anything non-physical exists beyond the realm of fairy tales?

EDIT: Wow... I don't think I've ever seen anyon paint themselves into a corner the way KA just did. Amazing.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: RickSp Here we go again. There is no proof in the existence of God. None. Nada. Zip. That requires faith. Those of us who reject faith as a basis of belief do not, as ole' Killer keeps repeating, do so based on faith. To claim that rejecting faith as a criteria for belief is itself an act of faith is the exactly equivalent of claiming that down is up, black is white and wet streets cause rain. And repeating the same nonsense over and over accomplishes nothing. The claim that "strong atheism" requires faith, as opposed, I presume, to garden variety athiesm is also foolish. Strong atheism, so called, is merely an affirmative rather than a passively voice position. The burden of proof remains on those who believe in their imaginary friend rather than those who do not. The rant about abiogenisis is equally silly. Except for the foolish fundie faction, most mainstream Christians have no issues with the idea that life came about through natural processes. Considerable progress has been made in understanding these natural processes, none of which need contradict anyone's doctrines or dogma except for thsoe whose antipathy for or ignorance of science resulte in the sorts of rants seen on this thread.

Hi Rick,

Your awesome logic and spelling skills take my breath away every time I read one of your posts. Are you morally opposed to proofreading?

Creation is the proof of God's existence.

Faith as a basis of belief? Faith IS belief, Rick.

Kindly provide conclusive SCIENTIFIC proof that "God does not exist."

Rick, "life came about through natural processes" certainly DOES
contradict Biblical doctrine. It contradicts the first ten words in my Bible: "In the Beginning, GOD CREATED the heavens and the Earth.

My Invisible Friend challenges your IlIogical and Unscientific Fantasies to a duel.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: pikatore In agreement. STRONG atheists commit to faith, because they believe in something that cannot be conclusively proven. But heres a point. I say 'there are no unicorns'. That includes faith as well, right? wrong. abiogenisis has been proven to be possible. Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Therefore there is evidence to support abiogenisis, and therefore physical reality is all that is required for life to originate. NO. I do not say outright that only the physical world exists. none of us ever said that. i say that i dont think a god exists, due to basically the reasons you put forward... though our argument is a bit more complicated than that, thats what it boils down to. AGAIN, it would be ignorant of myself to say all that exists in our plane of existence is physical matter. How would nuclear fusion happen then? You get more energy out than you put in, hence the inconsistency of phyiscal matter being turned into something else. Logic is the mechanism we use to decide what is real. I'm sure there will one day be a logical way to prove or disprove god, but for now, i'm sticking to the logical way of assuming there isnt a god by default, because if a magical man in the sky exists, than unicorns and fairies may exist as well, since there is as much evidence to support thier existence. In this argument, it is very appropriate for atheists to place the burden of proof on the theists. Put in a room a person who believes in unicorns, and one that doesnt, and forget logic or past experiances. The one who can conclusively prove that unicorns exist has to present evidence, which would be a unicorn. If that can't be done, than unicorns are assumed not to exist. Correct?

Absolutely correct. Thank you for providing me with yet another way to destroy evolutionary theory: if you can't produce one, the whole theory dies immediately. Let me know when you have a living one, and I will give you my address.This I really want to see.This is so exciting! It's going to be just like JURASSIC PARK!! Please, just ship it over in an oversize semi or whatever. But be careful, he may bite! Remember, if you can't produce one, then they are "assumed not to exist."

Check-mate. :)

[Gods_Mercenary]

There's some musing about the origin of life, but it's all conjecture unless we build a time machine.

[KillerArgument]

GM,

But we can be sure it all didn't "just happen," right?

That sure wouldn't be logical or scientific, would it?

[Agnos]

Quote by: KillerArgument Faith as a basis of belief? Faith IS belief, Rick.

There is a vast difference between reasonable faith, and unreasonable faith, but in the end it's really a game of semantics. Unreasonable faith relies upon a belief in that which has no concievable reason for being believed.

"There is not a single thing I can do to convince you of my belief, and even I cannot provide myself with a single bit of evidence in support of my own beliefs." < That is unreasonable faith.

Reasonable faith would entail believing something based solely upon that which can be measured. I can't prove 100% that you (or anything outside of my own mind, for that matter) exists. Thank you, Descartes. But there is more than enough reason to have faith that reality (obviously including you), as I percieve it, exists.

What category would God fall under? Reasonable, or unreasonable faith?

Like I said though, this is merely a game of semantics. We're nitpicking. I would not call dropping a ball and assuming it will fall to the ground 'faith'.

Quote by: KillerArgument Kindly provide conclusive SCIENTIFIC proof that "God does not exist."

You can't prove a negative. Let me put it this way: If I wanted to prove that something does not exist, what would I be looking for? lol

You see, it is not up to atheists to disprove the existence of God - that should seem undebatably obvious. Rather, the burden is upon those putting forth the claim that God exists. One can't disprove an infinite amount of things. Draw a banana with legs and arms and a face, and say that the real thing exists. Guess what, I can't disprove that it exists!

I can't disprove that there is a diamond the size of a VW Bug buried in my backyard. Does that mean I should grab a shovel and start digging for it? Should I start tearing up my backyard because I can't disprove that the diamond exists? Well, what if I said that the diamond brings meaning to my life? What if I said that my family likes to get together on Sundays to dig for the diamond, and that it really helps us to bond? Would any of this make it anymore real?

No, no, no. It is up to you to provide evidence. Until you do, there shall remain no justification for belief in God, or anything supernatural, for that matter. If only you yourself could acknowledge this, maybe you'd figure out exactly why it is you believe in God in the first place...

Quote by: KillerArgument Rick, "life came about through natural processes" certainly DOES contradict Biblical doctrine. It contradicts the first ten words in my Bible: "In the Beginning, GOD CREATED the heavens and the Earth.

Well, that's unfortunate, isn't it?

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Hi Rick, Your awesome logic and spelling skills take my breath away every time I read one of your posts. Are you morally opposed to proofreading?

In responding to your foolishness, why bother? Rather pleased that my sloppy typing bothers you. Never found an upside before.

Quote by: KillerArgument Creation is the proof of God's existence. Faith as a basis of belief? Faith IS belief, Rick.

Let's see, you acknowledge that there is no proof of God's existence. Now you claim that creation is proof. Not big on intellectual consistency are you? And no, faith and belief are not always synonyms. Belief based on rational evidence is not faith. Faith is belief without evidence. You have said as much.

Quote by: KillerArgument Kindly provide conclusive SCIENTIFIC proof that "God does not exist."

No need. You claim that your god exists. The burden of proof is on you. There are an infinite number of possible entities that could exist. Attempting to prove their non-existence is a fool's bet. You have already said that there is no proof of your God's existence. I'll settle for that. You've convinced me.

Quote by: KillerArgument Rick, "life came about through natural processes" certainly DOES contradict Biblical doctrine. It contradicts the first ten words in my Bible: "In the Beginning, GOD CREATED the heavens and the Earth.

I see that you are unfamiliar with metaphor. A pity. If you are a Bible literalist then you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Most Christians are not that foolish or that unscientific. Are you?

Quote by: KillerArgument My Invisible Friend challenges your IlIogical and Unscientific Fantasies to a duel.

Well isn’t that special? Have him give me a call.

[littlebear]

Isherwod quoted:

# development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer" # (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

So, would you consider the protozoa an evolution of the amoeba? If I remember my grade school science, the protozoa was more complex than the amoeba. Evolutionists have to start somewhere. Should that be with the ape, or a more simple ancestor of same? Evolutionists generally start with the most simple form of life, an amoeba. It is therefore encumbent upon them to explain where the amoeba came from. Most refer to the popular notion of certain elements that came together under certain conditions and produced the first amoeba.

Do you think the number of times you mistakenly correct something makes your assertion true? Your arrogance is embarrasing. Evolutionist theories do not begin with some higher form of life, and therefore must address some sort of beginning of the simplest form of life. Maybe they do not go into scientific theories of how that basic life form came to exist, but for sure they must give some kind of explanation for its existance. For you to insult someone posting here belittling them for not being even in the right science, is arrogance in the nth degree. Shall we all fall at your feet and let your shadow pass over us?

[RickSp]

Quote by: littlebear So, would you consider the protozoa an evolution of the amoeba? If I remember my grade school science, the protozoa was more complex than the amoeba. Evolutionists have to start somewhere. Should that be with the ape, or a more simple ancestor of same? Evolutionists generally start with the most simple form of life, an amoeba. It is therefore encumbent upon them to explain where the amoeba came from. Most refer to the popular notion of certain elements that came together under certain conditions and produced the first amoeba.

Hmmmn. That bears no relation to any to any reasonable explanation of evolution that I have ever seen.

Unlike the smug creationists, scientists do not have all the answers, and even the answers they think they have are subject to change. Though I doubt that you would be interested, there was an interesting recent potential discovery of smaller and simplier microbes than ever before encountered.

From Scum, Perhaps the Tiniest Form of Life

The smallest form of life known to science just got smaller. Four million of a newly discovered microbe -- assuming the discovery, reported yesterday in the journal Science, is confirmed -- could fit into the period at the end of this sentence. Scientists found the microbes living in a remarkably inhospitable environment, drainage water as caustic as battery acid from a mine in Northern California. The microbes, members of an ancient family of organisms known as archaea, formed a pink scum on green pools of hot mine water laden with toxic metals, including arsenic. ''It was amazing,'' said Jillian F. Banfield of the University of California, Berkeley, a member of the discovery team. ''These were totally new.'' In their paper, the scientists call the microbes ''smaller than any other known cellular life form.'' Scientists say the discovery could bear on estimates of the pervasiveness of exotic microbial life, which some experts suspect forms a hidden biosphere extending down miles whose total mass may exceed that of all surface life. It may also influence the search for microscopic life forms elsewhere in the solar system, a discovery that would prove that life in the universe is not unique to Earth but an inherent property of matter.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Agnos There is a vast difference between reasonable faith, and unreasonable faith, but in the end it's really a game of semantics. Unreasonable faith relies upon a belief in that which has no concievable reason for being believed. "There is not a single thing I can do to convince you of my belief, and even I cannot provide myself with a single bit of evidence in support of my own beliefs." < That is unreasonable faith. Reasonable faith would entail believing something based solely upon that which can be measured. I can't prove 100% that you (or anything outside of my own mind, for that matter) exists. Thank you, Descartes. But there is more than enough reason to have faith that reality (obviously including you), as I percieve it, exists. What category would God fall under? Reasonable, or unreasonable faith? Like I said though, this is merely a game of semantics. We're nitpicking. I would not call dropping a ball and assuming it will fall to the ground 'faith'. You can't prove a negative. Let me put it this way: If I wanted to prove that something does not exist, what would I be looking for? lol You see, it is not up to atheists to disprove the existence of God - that should seem undebatably obvious. Rather, the burden is upon those putting forth the claim that God exists. One can't disprove an infinite amount of things. Draw a banana with legs and arms and a face, and say that the real thing exists. Guess what, I can't disprove that it exists! I can't disprove that there is a diamond the size of a VW Bug buried in my backyard. Does that mean I should grab a shovel and start digging for it? Should I start tearing up my backyard because I can't disprove that the diamond exists? Well, what if I said that the diamond brings meaning to my life? What if I said that my family likes to get together on Sundays to dig for the diamond, and that it really helps us to bond? Would any of this make it anymore real? No, no, no. It is up to you to provide evidence. Until you do, there shall remain no justification for belief in God, or anything supernatural, for that matter. If only you yourself could acknowledge this, maybe you'd figure out exactly why it is you believe in God in the first place...

If it were "undebatably obvious," we wouldn't be here, would we?

"No, no, no," "shall" --who do you think you are, God?

Well, Agnos, what "convinces" a person is always a matter of *personal choice*, isn't it?

Kinda convenient to try to make your opponent the one who needs to prove his assertion when all the while, you got an assertion right there under your coat that you feel you shouldn't have to prove. Hmmm... Were you ever a referee?

So, in other words, you are trying to tell me that the tap-dancing banana on my table here--he's winking at me now--that he doesn't actually exist? Dang, he is going to be really, really upset to hear that!!

A huge diamond in our backyard is not necessary for a coherent understanding of the universe. A Creator God, however, is necessary.

There shall be no further nonsense of this thread, understood?

There is no justification for it, and therefore it shall be abolished immediately, by order of Agnos.

i before e except after c. :)

[Jack]

Do you think the number of times you mistakenly correct something makes your assertion true? Your arrogance is embarrasing...For you to insult someone posting here belittling them for not being even in the right science, is arrogance in the nth degree. Shall we all fall at your feet and let your shadow pass over us?

My goodness. I certainly seem to bother you a great deal. Consider me bemused. What could I have possibly said that has gotten you so frustrated? Whatever it is, you might want to calm down and simply refute what I post. I'm not interested in your opinion of me.

[Agnos]

Quote by: KillerArgument If it were "undebatably obvious," we wouldn't be here, would we? "No, no, no," "shall" --who do you think you are, God? Well, Agnos, what "convinces" a person is always a matter of *personal choice*, isn't it? Kinda convenient to try to make your opponent the one who needs to prove his assertion when all the while, you got an assertion right there under your coat that you feel you shouldn't have to prove. Hmmm... Were you ever a referee? So, in other words, you are trying to tell me that the tap-dancing banana on my table here--he's winking at me now--that he doesn't actually exist? Dang, he is going to be really, really upset to hear that!! A huge diamond in our backyard is not necessary for a coherent understanding of the universe. A Creator God, however, is necessary. There shall be no further nonsense of this thread, understood? There is no justification for it, and therefore it shall be abolished immediately, by order of Agnos. i before e except after c. :)

Wow. Are you going to respond to one of my points, or not?

A huge diamond in our backyard is not necessary for a coherent understanding of the universe. A Creator God, however, is necessary.

Above is the only statement from you that even came close to acknowledging one of my points, and it only indicates that you didn't comprehend the metaphor.

Kinda convenient to try to make your opponent the one who needs to prove his assertion when all the while, you got an assertion right there under your coat that you feel you shouldn't have to prove. Hmmm... Were you ever a referee?

And here, are you implying that by saying "I deny your claim that God exists" I am making an assertion? If that is the case, you need to take a course in Logic. So, if you came to me and said, "God exists." and I respond with "I deny that claim until I am provided with evidence." You would respond with "Well, I deny your denial that God exists. You have to provide me with evidence that God does not exist, even though I am the one who originally made the claim." Is this how you would respond?

How about you take my post one point at a time, and respond to it with some courtesy, instead of mocking me and jokingly shrugging off my arguments. Let's see what you've got to offer. Do you have anything to offer? If you did, you would g