RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 8:54 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 9:00 pm by truth_seeker.)
(March 17, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(March 17, 2016 at 8:30 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: Mmm. There is a difference between a speculation, and a fact. The former is not supported by solid evidence. The latter is.
The nature of the origin of life will affect atheism. If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
The various hypotheses that currently exist for abiogenesis are far beyond speculation. The chemistry for all of them is solid.
It doesn't matter that the exact explanation is not yet known. The fact that the current explanations work, and the complete lack of evidence for a supernatural explanation, is all that is needed to disregard the supernatural.
Quote: If it turns out to be super-natural, then that creates a problem for a naturalistic worldview, which is by far one of the strongest assumptions in atheism.
This is not true.
There are plenty of atheists that believe in the supernatural. Just not gods. Buddhism is largely an atheistic religion, yet they believe in ancestor spirits.
But there's further problems with your contention.
For the gods to become a viable explanation, you have to provide evidence that they exist.
How would you even go about proving that the existence of gods is even possible?
Whether abiogensis is far beyond speculation or near beyond speculation doesn't change the fact that its a speculation. Strongly wanting it to be a fact, is another story
Did you see the word god anywhere in this post?
(March 17, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No it doesn't, asshole.
Thanks for your kindness
Did you see me ridicule you in any way?
I hope we can keep discussions about ideas, not persons
