(October 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Again. *theory*. Scientists develop *theories* then test their truth value through various experiments. If evidence is found during this process that increases the truth value of that theory then it is further studied and tested until they have enough evidence to reach a certainty level of sigma 7.
Certainty is only gained in degrees. For example we can be 99.9999981% sure the theory of gravity is legitimate. That is one of the most backed theories there is.
There is no theory in science that is given 100% certainty because that would remove possibility of error, further enquiry or new evidence coming to light.

You are quoting a theory that there is no adequate means to test yet. As such it should be treated solely as a theory without evidence. An interesting avenue for exploration that holds theoretical value. Nothing more and nothing less.
No faith required.
If you had done the tiniest bit of research before making these claims you would know this.
You have not and I'm sorry but it really shows.

Ok, you're making so much sense now! Wow, I really am so stupid, thanks for pointing that out.

If a religious person makes a claim, even if there's evidence, the smart thing to do is mock it and think it's ridiculous. Obviously nothing like that could be true because... I don't want it to be!

But if there is a scientific theory out there that supports atheism, it should be taken extremely seriously, even if there's no evidence for it, and anyone who asks for evidence and shows a little skepticism is obviously so dumb!

Thanks for pointing this out!

---

(October 6, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Insanity x Wrote: Like I said we have a "good understanding" scientists have found multiple ways that life could have started. Just because we haven't done something yet doesn't mean that its hasn't ever happened.

*sigh*

We don't know for certain but the evidence points to things like abiogenesis. Pure chemistry which funnily enough is what human are made of and all animals for that matter. We may be very interesting chemistry but nothing more.

Oh yes it can. I'd like to see what you think can't be explained by these. Do you think your made up of something other than chemicals that are made up of atoms and electrons? If so show me. Prove it. Then I will have a reason to accept your claims.

What you think makes sense and what actually makes sense are completely different.

Nor do you.

Perhaps not evidence but very good reasons to accept things. If there is something that I think is true that turns out not to be then I will change my mind when I am provided with a good reason to.

Plus most things I accept as true would not require me to dedicate my life to them and pray to them. Nor do I base the rest of my life on these things.

And btw these lots and lots and lots of things are probably quite few in number lol.

Do you hear yourself??? These really sound like good arguments to you???

"Just because we have no evidence doesn't mean it's not 100% truth, as long as it supports atheism! It only makes sense to be really, deeply skeptical of ideas I don't like!"

I'm going to jump back a few pages here, out of necessity (since I don't have access a fully-functional time machine yet). Still, I'm in no Hare.

(October 6, 2012 at 1:23 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: We're working on the premise that life is a product of dumb energy, right? So when someone dies, there's just been some type of chemical reaction. Someone should be able to reverse that, right?

Let's try a little experiment. We'll take some basic ingredients: eggs, flour, sugar, butter or margarine, dried fruit. We take those items and mix them together in the traditional manner, pour the mixture into a suitable tin and pop it into a hot oven for a prescribed lenght of time. Upon removal of the tin from the oven, what would we expect to find? After all, all we put in were eggs, flour, sugar etc and exposed them to dumb energy, so shouldn't we expect those same ingredients to come out instead of (hopefully) a nice fruit sponge cake?

Clearly, there has been some type of chemical reaction. Someone should be able to reverse that and reassemble the eggs etc, right? For a simpler example, see if you can come up with a method to recombine a pile of ashes into the paper it used to be before I put a match to it. (Protip: not all chemical eractions are reversible. )

(October 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Again. *theory*. Scientists develop *theories* then test their truth value through various experiments. If evidence is found during this process that increases the truth value of that theory then it is further studied and tested until they have enough evidence to reach a certainty level of sigma 7.

Whoa there, lest we give our new friend - hi, by the way - the wrong idea. Scientists develop hypotheses, which are then tested by experiment. Only when they've been tested to destruction by repeated experiments by rival scientists who would just love to tear into false or erroneous data does whatever remains get to be called a theory. Even then, it's not beyond experimental reach; as new and improved data comes along, together with more sophisticated and sensitive detecting method, the relevant theories may (or may not) be modified appropriately. It takes a fundamental paradigm shift to completely overturn a theory, however.

(October 6, 2012 at 12:34 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Of course I am comfortable with unknowns. But you're obviously not. You are the one that is filling in unknowns with other (magical) unknowns.

Disease, floods, famines, earthquakes have all been unknowns in the past that ancients (and not so ancients) explained with "god did it". All you are doing is taking a bigger unknown and explaining it with "god did it". Didn't work in the past, won't work in the present, or future.

Oh I see why you're comfortable with unknowns! Because they're actually not unknown to you! You already know that any idea that doesn't fit in to your paradigm must be false... Wow!

So smart and so logical and so rational!

(October 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Oh I see why you're comfortable with unknowns! Because they're actually not unknown to you! You already know that any idea that doesn't fit in to your paradigm must be false... Wow!

So smart and so logical and so rational!

Your an extremely sarcastic person. You can be as sarcastic as you want but you have not yet made any good points. You have just moaned about how people refuse your bullshit.

(October 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm)Insanity x Wrote: Your an extremely sarcastic person. You can be as sarcastic as you want but you have not yet made any good points. You have just moaned about how people refuse your bullshit.

And honestly failed to understand quite basic science.. Pray tell Aki, how much of the natural sciences have you studied, what is your background in these topics?

(October 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Oh I see why you're comfortable with unknowns! Because they're actually not unknown to you! You already know that any idea that doesn't fit in to your paradigm must be false... Wow!

So smart and so logical and so rational!

See, this is the problem with theists. You clearly aren't comfortable with the unknowns. So uncomfortable that you will accept any answer, even one that is clearly made up. That fact is, the reason it doesn't fit our paradigm is because it doesn't make any sense. Don't you think that if there was actual evidence for god, we would have realized it by now? As for what is 'not actually unknown to us', I assume you mean a lot more than the origin of the matter that composed the sigularity. It has been proven that organic material can arise from non-living matter. It has been proven that bacteria are capable of evolution. If you have actual evidence for god, feel free to present it.

(October 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'm going to jump back a few pages here, out of necessity (since I don't have access a fully-functional time machine yet). Still, I'm in no Hare.

(October 6, 2012 at 1:23 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: We're working on the premise that life is a product of dumb energy, right? So when someone dies, there's just been some type of chemical reaction. Someone should be able to reverse that, right?

Let's try a little experiment. We'll take some basic ingredients: eggs, flour, sugar, butter or margarine, dried fruit. We take those items and mix them together in the traditional manner, pour the mixture into a suitable tin and pop it into a hot oven for a prescribed lenght of time. Upon removal of the tin from the oven, what would we expect to find? After all, all we put in were eggs, flour, sugar etc and exposed them to dumb energy, so shouldn't we expect those same ingredients to come out instead of (hopefully) a nice fruit sponge cake?

Clearly, there has been some type of chemical reaction. Someone should be able to reverse that and reassemble the eggs etc, right? For a simpler example, see if you can come up with a method to recombine a pile of ashes into the paper it used to be before I put a match to it. (Protip: not all chemical eractions are reversible. )

(October 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Again. *theory*. Scientists develop *theories* then test their truth value through various experiments. If evidence is found during this process that increases the truth value of that theory then it is further studied and tested until they have enough evidence to reach a certainty level of sigma 7.

Whoa there, lest we give our new friend - hi, by the way - the wrong idea. Scientists develop hypotheses, which are then tested by experiment. Only when they've been tested to destruction by repeated experiments by rival scientists who would just love to tear into false or erroneous data does whatever remains get to be called a theory. Even then, it's not beyond experimental reach; as new and improved data comes along, together with more sophisticated and sensitive detecting method, the relevant theories may (or may not) be modified appropriately. It takes a fundamental paradigm shift to completely overturn a theory, however.

Thanks for a more polite response. With you, I can just respectfully agree to disagree. But with full respect.

I agree that it might be true. I just don't have to swallow it until there's proof. I think that's how a lot of atheists feel about God, right? Tend to be real skeptical, right? That's how I feel about the life comes from chemistry hypothesis.

Thanks for the distinction between theory and hypothesis.

(October 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Thanks for a more polite response. With you, I can just respectfully agree to disagree. But with full respect.

I agree that it might be true. I just don't have to swallow it until there's proof. I think that's how a lot of atheists feel about God, right? Tend to be real skeptical, right? That's how I feel about the life comes from chemistry hypothesis.

Thanks for the distinction between theory and hypothesis.

But...that's a double standard, isn't it? You admit that 'we atheists' are skeptics when it comes to god, but you are willing to suspend all disbelief in that area. It has only been proven that non-living matter can become organic matter; said matter was not truly alive. It is true that you don't have to accept it as fact until there is proof. However, when looking at the merits of two competing, unproven hypotheses, it would be most logical to either claim agnosticism until the proof is in, or side with the one that has greater evidence. As of yet, I have seen evidence for abiogenesis, although not proof, but I haven't seen any evidence for god. So, by my reasoning, it would be most logical to either say I don't know, or place my bets with abiogenesis. Is there a reason you have concluded god on this point?

(October 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Thanks for a more polite response. With you, I can just respectfully agree to disagree. But with full respect.

I agree that it might be true. I just don't have to swallow it until there's proof. I think that's how a lot of atheists feel about God, right? Tend to be real skeptical, right? That's how I feel about the life comes from chemistry hypothesis.

Thanks for the distinction between theory and hypothesis.

You're very welcome, I think. The thing about agreeing to disagree, however, is that it only works when neither side of a two-sided debate has any more claim to validity than the other. If you are as sceptical about chemistry giving rise to life as you say, then the burden of proof is on you to support that position. It's not merely a question of being sceptical for scepticism's sake; the person deviating from the default position, or the one proposing some additional factor to the system, needs to bring it or evidence of it to the table. Otherwise, what are we to sink our teeth into, apart from my yummy cake?

(October 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm)Darkstar Wrote: But...that's a double standard, isn't it? You admit that 'we atheists' are skeptics when it comes to god, but you are willing to suspend all disbelief in that area. It has only been proven that non-living matter can become organic matter; said matter was not truly alive. It is true that you don't have to accept it as fact until there is proof. However, when looking at the merits of two competing, unproven hypotheses, it would be most logical to either claim agnosticism until the proof is in, or side with the one that has greater evidence. As of yet, I have seen evidence for abiogenesis, although not proof, but I haven't seen any evidence for god. So, by my reasoning, it would be most logical to either say I don't know, or place my bets with abiogenesis. Is there a reason you have concluded god on this point?

By what standard of evidence and proof? In another thread we tried to talk about the ultimate subjectivity of these things.

The modern scientific method is great for a certain field of knowledge. But it's a completely different philosophical assumption to assume that the modern scientific method applies to everything knowable.

There is an old method for spiritual knowledge. Of course the methods for achieving such knowledge are somewhat different than achieving knowledge in modern material science. Attaining spiritual knowledge requires the elevation of one's consciousness. There is a deep science to this, and, just like any dope off the street can't easily realize the truth of quantum physics, it's a category of knowledge that requires serious discipline and is not available to anyone and everyone.

---

(October 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You're very welcome, I think. The thing about agreeing to disagree, however, is that it only works when neither side of a two-sided debate has any more claim to validity than the other. If you are as sceptical about chemistry giving rise to life as you say, then the burden of proof is on you to support that position. It's not merely a question of being sceptical for scepticism's sake; the person deviating from the default position, or the one proposing some additional factor to the system, needs to bring it or evidence of it to the table. Otherwise, what are we to sink our teeth into, apart from my yummy cake?

Oh, ok sure. I appreciate the worldview of the Bhagavad Gita - it's the paradigm I consider most appropriate for understanding reality. Before you accuse me of dogmatism, I ask that you consider your own paradigm for achieving knowledge and the philosophical assumptions you've made that allow you to accept it.

Your comment assumes something like "the modern scientific method for achieving knowledge is the only legitimate source of attaining knowledge about the nature of reality." You've assumed that, not proven it.

I'd be happy to discuss the merits and faults of accepting one paradigm or another.

One of the fundamental truths explained in the Bhagavad Gita is that of the eternal spirit soul. It's nature and characteristics are described, as well as the method for experiencing it.

The Bhagavad Gita describes 5 categories of basic truths. Those are: the supreme controller, the material energy, the living entity, time and karma (activity). 4 of those truths are eternal, only karma is not.

As another poster mentioned earlier in this thread, accepting material energy as eternal may be a position even an atheist may be forced to accept. So, in any case, eternally existing matter is kind of a mystical idea, that is beyond reason and logic - so there are intellectual problems that are real hard to solve there.

My point is that dull matter, by itself, is inadequate to explain life.

If you'd like to seriously examine this alternative view with me, of course we could.