(March 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: ...To answer the final question there, no, it does not. And here's what I hope is a straightforward explanation of why:
There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).
Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?
How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?
Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?
...
There's a big group of things out there, call it "things that we know happened."
There's a subset of "things that we know happened", called "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened."
The subset "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened" can be split into two subsets: 1) "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened, and it happened for a natural reason" and 2) "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened, and it happened for a supernatural reason".
The first of those two sets is, whaddya know, identical to its parent set.
The second of those two sets... is empty.
What your question is essentially asking is, "isn't it equally possible that [this particular thing we know occurred] is [in the set of things that includes every single thing we know the reason for] as it is [in a set that describes something we haven't found even a single example of]". And, clearly, the answer is "no, that's not equally possible."
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
