Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Surgenator]

so the Miller–Urey experiment didn' t make amino acids? Or did they? They did.

Amino acids are not living things therefore the Miller-Urey experiment did not demonstrate abiogenesis.

You should check what the definition of abiogenesis is. I've already posted its definition.

[Heywood]

Amino acids are not living things therefore the Miller-Urey experiment did not demonstrate abiogenesis.

You should check what the definition of abiogenesis is. I've already posted its definition.

Miller-Urey did not observe life arising therefore they did not observe abiogenesis.

Anyways...I am done with this tangent...if you want to continue it...send me a PM.

[Surgenator]

My last suggested reading on this topic.

[Chas]

so the Miller–Urey experiment didn' t make amino acids? Or did they? They did.

Amino acids are not living things therefore the Miller-Urey experiment did not demonstrate abiogenesis.

And no one is claiming it did. It provides evidence that complex molecules arise naturally.

[Cyberman]

Know why the atheist has no burden of proof?

Because we're not trying to prove anything.

Even to yourself, to make sure you are not mistaken?

Depends if I'm trying to convince myself of something or other. But don't even try to twist it - BoP is an intrinsic part of presenting a case to someone else, not oneself. It's pretty much the fundamental rule of logic and critical thinking.

Most claims get through the filter basically unhindered, while the ones that do give us pause tend to be fairly trivial - does this washing powder really perform as well as it says on the adverts, why should I buy it over another brand etc. Only claims that sound far too good to be true are rejected outright and dumped in the "evidence pending" folder. But that's basic scepticism. Atheism is a specialised subset of that, focusing on one issue only. So when we talk about burden of proof in atheist terms, all we are asking is what are you claiming as your god, what are its attributes and how can we investigate anything about it?

[Exian]

Also, I'm an atheist now. Well, not now exactly, they have to form a theistic religion first, but...

So, as an atheist, you define yourself solely in opposition to various opinions held by different individual theists.

It's like a conservative who just hates the left but has no ideas of his own.

You have refuted 23, say, concepts of God, and are waiting for some theist (me, perhaps?) to give you the 24th concept to reject.

Is that how it is?

Well, I do, after all, hate god. Is that what you were driving at?

No, that isn't the sole definition of myself. But in order for me to label myself an atheist there has to at least be one defined position of theist. And I consider my atheist position tentative. I constantly put it on the line when honestly reviewing any god claim. It's not a position that I hold dear- that must be correct at all costs. If a god claim presents it's self that I find I cannot reject, then I will say I am not an atheist.

(I don't hate what I don't believe in- to clear that up.)

[Esquilax]

None of those are observations of abiogenesis. No one has ever seen abiogenesis so why should we believe it happened? I am arguing that your claim...that atheist only believe things which have been shown to be true....is false. I am arguing by presenting an example of a belief held by atheists which has never been shown to be true.

The problem is that you're arguing from the false premise that all atheists believe abiogenesis to have occurred. Personally, my position is that I don't know how life began on Earth, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of the atheists here will join me in that, which immediately demonstrates that your argument is working from a faulty foundation.

The reason why the folks here are defending abiogenesis, before you cut in with the "oh yeah? Well why are they all posting evidence for it, then?" crap, is that at least we have some indications that abiogenesis is possible and can happen. At the moment, it is the best supported theory for how life could have arisen. That doesn't afford it automatic certain belief, but it is a fact that requires recognition; this is where the smart money goes.

Besides, since when was direct observation necessary to confirm something in science? Are you one of those Ken Ham "were you there?" guys, Heywood?

[Whateverist]

I have read tons about abiogenesis. It hasn't been shown to be true. It has never been observed. Yet it is believed as fact by atheists everywhere.

Well I admit I believe it to the same extent I believe in the existence of other minds. There is no cold hard proof but the alternative would be so fantastically absurd that I have no qualms in dismissing it. I mean, here we are and yet any reasonable account of our planet's formation would hold that there was an earlier period when it was not capable of supporting any life. So of course life had to have come from non life. You believe that too, you just think there was a magic bunny who turned non life to live life.

If you insist life did not come from non-life, what do you think it did come from? Positing a magic bunny doesn't change the fact that you think the live bits came from something that was not life.

[downbeatplumb]

Not the old "we've never seen abiogenesis therefore god" argument AGAIN.

For one thing science isn't finished yet and there have been discoveries that suggest workable mechanisms for abiogenesis.
For another even if abiogenesis was disproven it would not be evidence FOR a god you know what would be evidence that god did something, evidence that this creature exists.
And thirdly, the failed god hypothesis has no explanatory aspect to it, saying god did it is not sufficient. I want details, I want the scientifically backed up reasons as to how god did it not just a hand wave and a "he just did".

Theists pick holes at the current gaps in our scientific knowledge but offer nothing to replace it. They would wind back the clock to the dark ages if they could.

Rant over.

[datc]

This discussion has been fun!

I thank everyone who contributed; I have learned a lot and have hopefully given you something to think about, as well.

I hope to be checking out this forum periodically and possibly even participating.

Later guys.