MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

Ok, well lets pretend that abiogenesis isn't an extraordinary claim...lets pretend that it is a natural, ordinary claim.

No, let's not pretend it at all. Because we were talking about the resurrection of Jesus, and then when you couldn't answer my very simple statement, you started deflecting by talking about abiogenesis. It's entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about before, and you are not going to get away with your blatant unwillingness to actually engage with your own conversation except on terms where you think you'll win.

So, where is the evidence for it??

I don't think you actually understand how evidence works in a scientific field. The evidence for abiogenesis, as I've said before, are the numerous probabilistic indicators that lead a reasonable person to consider the proposition, in addition to the lab experiments that demonstrate that the basis of the concept can occur naturally. If you're looking for the kind of simplistic ideal of certainty that theism baselessly asserts, then we don't have that yet, but it's also not required. Science is probabilistic, and the probability trends away from intelligent designers and toward natural causes. You can continue to ignore the way science works in order to demand scientific evidence, but you'll be dishonest if you do.

Not that that's ever stopped you before.

See, you can't even prove an ordinary, natural claim...but then you have the nerve to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" when you have a natural, ordinary claim that you can't prove??

This doesn't follow at all. It's merely a bullying tactic, substituting scoffing mockery for an actual point; so what if I can't prove every claim ever? How does that even connect with the above? It's a total non-sequitur, and also a complete strawman to begin with. You keep foisting abiogenesis on me, but I don't accept that. My position is that we don't know how life began on earth, with the further corollary that natural means are more probable given what we know now than supernatural ones, and that abiogenesis is the best supported current theory. I'm not required to defend something I don't accept as true, and I've told you my position on this in the past, which I think makes it clear that what you're saying here is yet more dishonest deflection, rather than an actual rebuttal.

That is fine..the only problem is, I wasn't using it as an argument.

Oh, so you were just being a dismissive git? Okay, so you were being an asshole, and you haven't escaped the requirement to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim. Good job wasting everyone's time.

Did Miller and that other guy experiment create life from nonlife? If you are honest, you will answer "No".

No, they didn't, and I pointed out numerous times that they didn't. What they did do was provide a means by which the building blocks of life form naturally, a demonstration of possibility that is an indicator toward abiogenesis. My entire point being that even this preliminary step is covered by natural means, but not by intelligent design. We may not have a complete picture of abiogenesis yet, but at least we've got some of the pieces; intelligent design hasn't even provided a single shred of evidence.

They didn't create life from nonlife, but even if they DID..hypothetically speaking, even if they did...what would that prove? That intelligent design was needed!!

No, actually the compounds in question formed completely without direction from outside sources, using variables that are entirely common within nature. Stuff was evaporated and some electricity was present, but both of those things are naturally occurring. Given that the experimental environment was sealed, you couldn't claim intelligent design even played a role here unless you hadn't bothered to even look up the experiment in question.

But then, assuming your own ignorance is equivalent to reality is a common tactic for you.

And not only that, but then they would have to get that life to think, which is an independent problem from abiogenesis!!!

Yes, but bringing it up as an argument against abiogenesis would be an irrelevant deflection. So... shocker.

As I've said before, these are all independent problems, so get Miller back in the lab and tell him to hold his breath until he can conduct the right experiment that will guarantee life from non-life

Certainty is a dishonest misunderstanding of both the methodology of science and reality itself. Besides, my point, which you seem to have missed again, is that the evidence for abiogenesis is "some," and the evidence for intelligent design is "none."

But the life itself came from something that was already living (God)...so still, it wasn't life from nonlife, it was life from life, you know, what we are all accustomed to actually seeing.

But god's life didn't come from life, making it impossible according to your own argument.

Hey, yeah, I believe in the Genesis account of how life began, but the difference between my belief and yours is simple; I am not calling my belief science...I know my belief is beyond the realms of science and nature itself...your beliefs ARE SUPPOSED to be scientific/nature related, so I expect, based on observation and repeated experiment to be able to witness abiogenesis...so far, nothing.

My belief is that neither of us know how life began. So, I guess you're strawmanning again.

Not only that, but I can't even conceive the thought of life coming from nonlife or consciousness from unconsciousness...these things are so unnatural to me, that I can't even conceive the thought.

So what? I already took you to task for this argument from personal incredulity before.

I could say that a brain is a necessary but not sufficient cause for consciousness, with life being another component.

Wait a minute, so there could be consciousness with no brain?

Do you not know what the word "necessary" means?

But you're equivocating, since even the sentence you quoted doesn't say anything about consciousness, it speaks about life.

I mentioned consciousness because it is a dual problem for you. I always link the two together to give my point an extra umph.

You link the two together because you're dishonest; neither are actually linked, they don't rely on one another. You conflate the two so that when somebody gives an answer to one you can go "aha! But what about the other! Since you didn't answer that, the answer you did give is untrue!" and switch when required. You're asking for a single unified answer that covers two completely unrelated topics.

That consciousness evolves as a part of life is well documented, regardless of your simplistic, offhand dismissals without looking at any of the evidence.

Cart before the horse fallacy, yet again. You are telling me that something evolved, but in order to evolve, it has to exist...but the origin of its existence is what is in question.

Yeah, pretty much exactly like this. You asked me about consciousness, and then when I gave you an answer about consciousness you immediately switched to abiogenesis as though you were always talking about that. But since I've started adding my own quotes above yours, everyone can see that you're just switching topics on the fly to dishonestly dismiss everything I say on these issues.

But you're not going to re-route the conversation midway through when you can't actually answer the point; we know that the components of life, organic matter and so on, are naturally occurring, and that the building blocks of those can form without direction from outside sources. That was my point, that those things are readily demonstrable as real, and yet magic designers are not.

That is like saying "We have all of the ingredients to make the pizza, we just don't know how to make it".

When intelligent design can't produce any ingredients at all, and their idea of how to make a pizza is just "god makes it," then it's still a far better answer than your own.

If Domino's had that kind of mindset, they wouldn't be in business.

Intelligent design has less to work with than that...

Once again, this is a question you asked me. I didn't bring this up, you did, and the least you could do is stay on topic rather than throwing desperate non-sequiturs at me in an attempt to deflect.

One conversation leads to another...such is life

Yes, but when you do that instead of answering the conversation already taking place, that's called "deflection."

You asked for a probabilistic model, shitlord! Besides, the fact that physical matter exists is demonstrable, as is the laboratory experiments I pointed you to earlier! Jesus fucking christ, are you even reading what you write?

So because "physical matter exists", therefore, abiogenesis is true?

That is about as worse of a non sequitur I've seen.

It's also a strawman. The position is "physical matter exists, physical matter is all that's required for any potential naturalistic origin of life. Intelligent design requires supernatural additions, which aren't demonstrable as existing. Therefore, since the former has all the ingredients readily available, and the latter does not, the probability of the former being true is higher than the latter, until evidence of the latter's missing ingredient and method comes to light."

You asked for a probabilistic model, but now you apparently don't know what probability is either?

I don't think you know very much about scientific theories if you think they're that easy to come by.

Apparently they are...but instead of God, it is "In the beginning, nature..."

Yeah, see how easy it is to make something look silly when you drastically oversimplify it and put it in a format that's devoid of information?

Oh wait... that's just describing the bible format in general...

But probabilistically, which again, is what you asked for, there is a greater probability of abiogenesis happening versus intelligent design, since we have experimental results, and the components of abiogenesis have the advantage of being readily apparent to all.

You have no background knowledge or data to determine what is more probable...so kill that noise.

Yes, I do: Miller-Urey and John Oros. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Also, as I've been saying all along, at least we know natural things are possible. We have no such indications for supernatural things.

Oh, and intelligent design by supernatural space wizards has never been observed either, so...

I admit that my belief is one of faith...can you do that for yours?

No, mostly because they're not "my beliefs," because I don't feel the need to believe something before there's sufficient evidence to justify it. I will, however, defend science from assault by ignorant blowhards like you all day long.

I actually mentioned that in my probability model above. Strange that you missed it; I guess it was inconvenient to your position too.

What you mentioned was a failed experiment.

The Miller-Urey experiment exceeded expectations, producing more compounds, upon further inspection, than was even mentioned in the initial report. It was in no way a failed experiment, baseless assertions from people who know nothing about it notwithstanding.

Yeah, but oversimplified strawmen are your bag, not mine.

Straw man my ass...if you negate intelligent design, what else are you left with but nature...therefore, NATUREDIDIT!!!

... Which is an oversimplification. Like I said.

So you believe your god is eternal? After spending a few weeks explaining to us why you think eternities are impossible? Hmm...

I never said eternities were impossible, I said ACTUAL infinities are impossible. Fundamental difference there that you are obviously ignorant of.

Oh, so god isn't ACTUALLY eternal, then? He's only IMAGINARILY eternal? Makes much more sense.

Besides, "began to exist" doesn't absolve you of this problem either; you still believe in a lifeform that exists without requiring another life form to do so, something that you're claiming is impossible. So when you say "life comes from life" you evidently don't believe that.

Listen carefully...because you are apparently lost in your own pile of crap...when I talk about how life can't come from nonlife, I am talking about life that BEGAN to exist. Being the monotheistic Christian that I am, I don't believe in any necessary being besides God, so therefore I believe that God is an uncaused cause...which means that God doesn't require any outside source to sustain his existence. You follow me?

So then you believe that it is possible for life to exist without an additional life to bring it into being. You just believe that god is the only life that exists within that category. I understand that, but you have no reason to believe that category doesn't contain more life forms than god. You just baselessly assert that god is the only being within that category, but you've got no evidence.

You've undermined your own premises here. You say that life can only come from life, but that god is in a special category where he doesn't have to. But in reality that means that your worldview contains two categories, not the one you're expecting everyone else to play with. Just because you think that the second category only contains god, and therefore nobody else can use it, doesn't mean that's automatically true. You haven't demonstrated it, and thus hoarding the additional category for yourself is both dishonest and hypocritical.

You believe it's possible for life to exist without life. Simply braying "but god is special!" doesn't suddenly make that not the case.

I dont know what part of that you dont understand..but I dont think I can help you any further.

It's not a lack of understanding. It's a refusal to just take your special pleading at face value.

The really rich thing is that if I tell you that life didn't "begin to exist" either, you'd probably start yammering about how impossible that is.

If you told me that life didn't begin to exist, you will be intellectually dishonest, and if you have to be intellectually dishonest just to hold on to your atheism, then that is very, very ,very sad and it goes to show the great lengths one will go to continue in their disbelief.

How do you know that I'd be intellectually dishonest? How have you demonstrated that life cannot be eternal?

And if you haven't done that, isn't your accusation here just an unjustified presupposition you've made, because it's convenient for your argument?

Another problem with what you just said is that we've never seen a life or consciousness that didn't begin to exist, so under the same logic you were using on me a moment ago, we have no reason to believe it... And yet you do. Still a hypocrite, I see.

Well I will put it to you this way; we know that life on this earth began, so the question is where did it come from...and we know there couldn't have been an infinite number of causes which lead to it...therefore, in order for the event of life's origins to come to past, it had to come from a past-boundary...and a first cause which initiated the chain of events which lead to it.

"Here's a rule I've made up. Here's a problem with that rule. So here's a thing which breaks the rule, in order to resolve the problem I made up, with the rule I made up."

Yes, I'm aware that a lot of christian apologetics comes down to "god is the thing that does the thing that resolves the problem Ive defined into existence by fiat, by being able to violate the rules I've set in place by similar fiat." I'm just also aware, apparently unlike apologists, that if you have to propose a thing that violates the rules you've set in order to resolve a problem, then those rules evidently do not apply consistently, and thus are not a problem at all.

Please enlighten me on exactly what rules are being violated.

"Life only comes from life. Therefore, life on earth is a problem. So there must be a life that didn't come from life that created all the life, because as I said, life only comes from life."

Seriously, boiled down, your first cause argument is basically "Life only comes from life, so therefore we need a life which doesn't come from life in order to make the first life, and that thing is called god." Your conclusion, regardless of the semantic "begins to exist" tricks you want to pull, violates the first premise you erect as a problem that needs to be resolved.

It is not a semantic trick, it is a fact...life on this earth began...no one is disputing that. If we go back in time to when there was no life, either we will go back in time to eternity past at which no future event would be possible, or we go back in time to where we would reach a past boundary at which the trail leads to something that was already living.

You just said here that eternity is impossible. But you said earlier that god is eternal. Hence, it is a semantic trick; why are eternities impossible when natural causes are being discussed, but conveniently possible when it comes to your god?

The first one is logically impossible, so the second one wins by default...hands down.

False dichotomy. There could be three options, like, say, that life arose gradually from a series of chemical reactions. You dismiss that one out of hand, but you have no reason for doing so. Same with my cyclical universe model from the other thread; you never even addressed that one, you just ignored it and pretended I hadn't said anything.

You're just that committed to your false dichotomy, I guess. It is the only environment that your theology can survive in, after all.

If you don't believe that life needs to come from life then fine, but don't pretend that you do so that you can force other people to play by rules you have no intention of playing by yourself.

A first cause' life doesn't need to come from life, obviously...but a life that BEGAN to exist, like yours and mines, does need to come from life.

But you've never seen a life that didn't begin to exist! Therefore, according to your own argument, it's impossible!

By the way, how did you determine that it's possible for life to exist without beginning to exist? How did you observe that?

Because the existence of life cannot be extended into past eternity, that is why...I can observe the logical absurdity on that notion.

But that's an argument from ignorance, not evidence for a life form that didn't begin to exist. At best, what you get out of that is "life can't be eternal," but that's not what you're trying to prove.

And not only that, but we KNOW that life on this earth BEGAN to exist...you want to talk hypotheticals as if that will somehow help your position, but unfortunately for you, it won't..it will just lead you right back to the absurd notion of infinity.

If infinity is absurd then god cannot be eternal, and therefore you're wrong.

Bullying? Passive aggressive? Not I. I just kick the actual factuals.

Which is exactly what a self-aggrandizing bully would say.

You beat a person up, and they just come back begging for more SMH.

Interesting that you say you're not being a bully, but your description of what you're trying to do to me is a comparison with a violent assault.