Atheism is impossible, I don't see how life can be created naturalistically.

[8BitAtheist]

Well, this will be easy to refute.

1. I do not believe in any deities
2. Therefore atheism must be possible.

[Autumnlicious]

We didn't need them, that's what we had. Cart before the horse. There is no veil between the large and the small, everything is made of "the power". Chemicals don't have "interests", that has to be about the strangest way I've ever heard this sentiment expressed.

What I'm getting at is the microscopic interchanging of info which is both random and deliberate that lead to the forming of a cell, deliberate cannot come from a senseless act of a nothing object.

Hold on there. What 'info' are you referring to?

And why does it have to be 'deliberate'?

Finally because I have to go now, NASA themselves cannot figure out how the original cells went from inanimate to animate.

Ok, so a singular agency with almost no funding and a recently cut astrobiological division at Ames hasn't managed to answer the emergence of life.

So what?

..... there must be a clue somewhere in modern cells surely, but hey I'm no specialist.

Why does there have to be a 'clue'?

[The Grand Nudger]

Firstly NASA is (was?) a space agency. If you'd like to talk botany I can show you just how "deliberate" comes from senseless acts of nothing. There is no mind controlling the growth of a plant, and yet it "seems" so orderly. Why is that?

[Diamond-Deist]

Firstly NASA is (was?) a space agency. If you'd like to talk botany I can show you just how "deliberate" comes from senseless acts of nothing. There is no mind controlling the growth of a plant, and yet it "seems" so orderly. Why is that?

Hmmm that's a good way to look at it, still doesn't answer the question though as plants are much more advanced, were talking building block level.

The guy in the "How life began" programme works for NASA because I saw him on a dark matter clip on You Tube, fk it I'll find him for ya.

Whatever I can't see it on the descriptions I' .... almost gave up Neil deGrasse Tyson.

this dude is on the DVD ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson


Moros Synackaon I'm not talking to you because you changed my religion without my consent, hugely offensive.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Firstly NASA is (was?) a space agency. If you'd like to talk botany I can show you just how "deliberate" comes from senseless acts of nothing. There is no mind controlling the growth of a plant, and yet it "seems" so orderly. Why is that?

There is a word for the insistence of imposing order, meaning and purpose where none exists. Now what is that word? Oh,yes "religion".

[Diamond-Deist]

Watch the programme you must be able to get it on the net, "How life began" I'm gonna watch it now then go bed, got boxing tomorrow and it's late here.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can talk building blocks too. Plants exploit the tendencies of this or that element in a manner that is both beneficial to them, increasing in order, and without any intelligence whatsoever. It's life on cruise control, as it has always been.

[Gawdzilla]

Then why call it God?

God can mean any sort of super power to all different people, all I know is this universe is to great to be just bricks and water however I do not believe in a Santa type God like mainstream religions.

Yes, folks, that is as stupid as it sounds.

[SleepingDemon]

Cells don't decide anything. Life is based upon the success of its own survival. Cells multiply so that their species survives. If life did not happen here, it would have happened somewhere else.

[theVOID]

I have it on DVD so no I was not mistaken, program called "How life began", I've got it in my hand right now, it's a good viewing.
Cells did not formulate alive it took thousands of years of combination elements, they then formed a cell wall and a chemical reaction took place , it settled then ta da life.

But cells are necessarily alive, even when none of the constituents are, thus I took issue with your saying cells were once inanimate, though now it seems to be a simple case of miscommunication. Cells being 'alive' means little more than they are a system of constituent parts that displays the functions I listed above - it's much the same as a star, none of the individual atoms, nor the strong, weak, electromagnetic or gravitational force are stars yet they coalesce into a system with various properties, the descriptive term for which we have given it being a star.

What I've always kept an eye on is that if you leave a pile of bricks on the floor, if you come back in a million years you don't expect to find a house do you? it takes intelligence to make things happen.

No, but that is because there is no viable mechanism by which that could happen. In contrast to this is a seed, if you planted it in fertile soil and came back some time later you would likely find a tree. All this shows is that there is no natural mechanism for producing some systems, but there are for others.

This whole world is coincidence after coincidence with life fighting for it's existence, it had a will, will does not come from inanimate objects .... think about that.

There is a fairly massive difference between coincidence and the product of an algorithm, it's not entirely a coincidence that my fingers are attached to my hand or that my brain produces electrical signals that I experience giving me a sense of my functions and while there is some element of randomness or coincidence by and large the result of my being is a product of two interacting algorithms, biological/chemical evolution and natural selection - these two aspects are in some sense coincidental, it is a coincidence (or perhaps more specifically a reasonable probability) that chemicals can coalesce into self-replicating systems and it is also in some sense a coincidence that these systems can be destroyed or damaged which provides a selection pressure and gives rise to natural selection (though in this case it's extremely likely, indestructible systems are by their very nature much more improbable meaning natural selection is pretty much inevitable).

Cool that's solved, you, I, we don't understand how life began, we know the mechanics but not the first spark ..... that's what the NASA guy said.

I'm not so sure there is a "first spark", but yeah, we know how some of the mechanisms could work.

Ok I can play that, as a deist I personally think one of two things either God started the Universe if i am to believe the Big Bang theory (lets not go there) but in all honesty I think that's the easy option and a childish one, "there was nothing then kaboom there was life" ...... no I don't think so.

That's a straw-man, "nothing" is impossible namely due to two well established physical principles, the conservation of energy and the conservation of information. There was always something, rather it was either a non-universe or a different universe/multiverse, which one we have no idea, that sort of knowledge far exceeds our current understanding.

I'd be keen to discuss the Big Bang topic with you over PM if you are interersted.

In essence to help the OP's cause, for him to give up on any notion of God you would have to show him undoubtedly that something can come from nothing.

That's entirely fallacious, for both the reason I stated above about "something from nothing" being a misnomer and also it's an argument from ignorance/incredulity, inferring the existence of a deity because x is unknown is an epic failure of reason.

Until that time Nicholas you may confidently walk the path of the righteous with your head held high and take no notice of these disbelievers!!

I hardly see how presuming there is a deity, let alone that he has a son called Jesus, makes anybody any more "righteous" than someone who rejects those concepts as being unsubstantiated, "self-righteous" sure, anybody who claims access to such knowledge is.

..... I will revise those links you put out, it better not be about abiogenesis I know this already from the programme.

Talk Origins is a massive archive of information related to everything abiogenesis/evolution, but as far as I'm concerned what you said about abiogenesis "we don't understand how life began, we know the mechanics but not the first spark" is perfectly reasonable, if you're interested in learning more about the hypothesis I'd recommend you spend a few hours scouring Talk Origins but otherwise we share the same opinion.