For you believers...

[magnifier661]

No.

You can't disprove much - that's something of a logic trap.

If a scientist did make life from inert material, it's prove with certainty that it could be done as we expect.

But let's be clear shall we? It hasn't been done; therefor it's a moot point.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually there was. You designed the fire to set fire to the paper. You were the cause and the paper burning was the effect. Try again.

I am the cause of the fire. The fire has a "mind" of its own. It will burn as long as it wants to, leaving a pile of ash in whatever shape it decides. It's not actually deciding... it's RANDOM.

 

[jlprk]

I believe that we all must come together. Here is the Pope's newspaper coverage of a Muslim province in Indonesia.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Unde...-banned-from-straddling-motorbikes-26790.html

 

[PapaG]

Blind faith.

I lack the ability to believe in things like a deity based solely on faith, but I understand those who do have faith.

I find those who bash people with faith, while not understanding that concept, to be 1000x more annoying, based on their own certainty of there being no deity, yet without having proof.

 

[PapaG]

If you don't know what happened you can't say anything at all about the odds. For all we know god-free abiogenesis could be something that's inevitable and happening all the time in the universe. It could also be something extremely improbable on any one planet, but inevitable in an infinite universe and the universe is infinite.

Well, I'm convinced...

 

[PapaG]

Life doesn't happen by chance. Try to comprehend what he's posted.

We have clear evidence of broth, chicken, vegetables, noodles, and seasonings without any need for intelligent design or a creator. We have chicken soup in all it's glory. All of this with 100% certainty.

God of the gaps says we didn't see the ingredients assembled to make the soup that leprechauns made the soup. Regardless of the fact there is not one shred of evidence that leprechauns actually exist.

Humans made soup, not 'nature'. LOL What a terrible analogy.

 

[PapaG]

The fact there is life is evidence life came from non life, or that it always existed.

Really? Can you prove that "fact"? You'd be a very rich man if you can do so.

 

[PapaG]

Not programming.

Cancer is a mutation of a cell. It's abnormal, hence a serious disease.

Mutations occur when particles from radiation from the sun or space literally collide with atoms that make up DNA of a cell and damage it.

Strawman that has literally nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

[PapaG]

So if in some lab somewhere a scientist combines electricity and amino acids and POOF there is single cell life does that instantly disprove the existence of god?

Yes, if the experiment can be replicated. It's been tried countless times already, though, even with megadoses of electricity that far surpass any natural sources.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well, I'm convinced...

I would hope so, since you're a strict agnostic and that's the position I was arguing.

 

[Denny Crane]

Really? Can you prove that "fact"? You'd be a very rich man if you can do so.

Evidence isn't necessarily air-tight proof.

They actually used to think that life spontaneously arose. Then they put some meat in a container so flies couldn't get in to lay their eggs and they found no maggots.

 

[Denny Crane]

Strawman that has literally nothing to do with the origin of life.

I guess I was responding to the strawman that life was intelligently designed.

 

[PapaG]

I would hope so, since you're a strict agnostic and that's the position I was arguing.

I don't think you're arguing the agnostic position, though. You're lacking the ability to recognize 'faith', and also the ability to realize that it's OK not to know, and not to 'believe' one way of the other.

 

[PapaG]

I guess I was responding to the strawman that life was intelligently designed.

Got it ... that makes sense.

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't think you're arguing the agnostic position, though. You're lacking the ability to recognize 'faith'

agnosticism pretty much invalidates faith.

faith is just belief without sufficient reason anyway. I can certainly recognize that.

and also the ability to realize that it's OK not to know, and not to 'believe' one way of the other.

actually that's exactly what I was saying. MarAzul was the one claiming you either have to believe this or that, not allowing for "we don't know". maybe i'm crossing over from stuff posted in the Jesus thread that you haven't read.

 

[PapaG]

agnosticism pretty much invalidates faith.

Completely incorrect, from an intellectual viewpoint. Agnosticism doesn't invalidate anything, or validate anything, that can't be proven through the scientific method.

Again, it's OK to admit you don't know about things without believing if they exist, or don't exist.

 

[MarAzul]

agnosticism pretty much invalidates faith.

faith is just belief without sufficient reason anyway. I can certainly recognize that.



actually that's exactly what I was saying. MarAzul was the one claiming you either have to believe this or that, not allowing for "we don't know". maybe i'm crossing over from stuff posted in the Jesus thread that you haven't read.

BS! MarAzul certainly did not claim you have to believe anything. You should add, you are in error to your position of "I don't know".

 

[crowTrobot]

Completely incorrect, from an intellectual viewpoint. Agnosticism doesn't invalidate anything, or validate anything

faith is a claim to knowledge. agnosticism is the position that knowledge is not possible. the are not compatible.

 

[crowTrobot]

certainly did not claim you have to believe anything

oops yeah confused you with e-blazer in the jesus thread. sorry

 

[magnifier661]

faith is a claim to knowledge. agnosticism is the position that knowledge is not possible. the are not compatible.

Atheism is also a claim of knowledge. Now you are getting somewhere!

So agnosticism invalidates both faith in theism or faith in atheism. Got it!!!

 

[crowTrobot]

Atheism is also a claim of knowledge. Now you are getting somewhere!

So agnosticism invalidates both faith in theism or faith in atheism. Got it!!!

agnosticism is technically not compatible with the strong form of atheism, true. an agnostic would consider a either convinced theist or a strong atheist to be misguided.

of course most people who call themselves atheists are not of the strong persuasion, but no sense rehashing semantics with you or PapaG. doesn't really matter.

 

[Denny Crane]

agnosticism is technically not compatible with the strong form of atheism, true. an agnostic would consider a either convinced theist or a strong atheist to be misguided.

of course most people who call themselves atheists are not of the strong persuasion, but no sense rehashing semantics with you or PapaG. doesn't really matter.

A philosopher might ask, "does it matter if it matters?"

 

[ABM]

You guys still hashing this out?

SO glad I'm a believer! Such peace.

 

[PapaG]

You guys still hashing this out?

SO glad I'm a believer! Such peace.

So glad I'm fine not knowing either way, too. It leaves hope in the equation.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Heat won last night, proving there is no god.

 

[jlprk]

I'll catch up on this thread. I've been stuck in the 3rd dimension lately. Which reminds me to mow the lawn tomorrow. Then I'll return to the 7th dimension and educate all of you.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Bump.

Dr. S. James Gates is the first person to surprise/stump Neil:



The strands of computer codes that are identical to the web correcting codes in web browsers..........

oO

 

[Further]

Bump.

Dr. S. James Gates is the first person to surprise/stump Neil:



The strands of computer codes that are identical to the web correcting codes in web browsers..........

oO

This post deserves its own thread. I'm not sure where the discussion will go, but it's just a fascinating concept to contemplate.

I think the easiest way to discount this belief is to say string theory is is just a theory, and has a long way to be proven as the correct explanation of quantum gravity.

Or, even if you believe in string theory:

It's a theory who's equations are built by man, so perhaps the equation is not as elegant as it one day may be. It's in the sloppy excess of the equation that we find superfluous information, derived by man, that mimics computer code. Think of many modern day things made by man, they are constructed out of other things made by man. A nut or bolt from a dishwasher may also be used in a some rollerblades. And certainly the ideas from one could be found in the other, the helical threads of a screw, the bearings in the wheels, etc. So perhaps, the computer codes in String theory are derived from the simple nature that man is creating the equations and man is flawed.



On the other hand, this could be true and we could be living in the matrix.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/jgates.html


His supersymmetry equations and theory in detail.