Theism is literally childish

[John V]

See this is an example of how religious indoctrination conditions children to be unable to tell reality from fiction. Because how can you teach a child the concept of plausibility if you are expecting them to accept that one fairy tale is true while all the others are false?

OK, what's this concept of plausibility that I missed out on?

There are very plausible hypotheses about how life first developed

If there are multiple hypotheses, that means that none of them has enough evidence to be proven.

So, what makes them very plausible? How does very plausible differ from plain old plausible? How do we measure plausibility?

and we have no reason to suspect that we will ever need to resort to the non-explanation of magic. What you are trying to do is convince people that just because there are gaps in our knowledge that all your fairy tale explanation is equally valid. But this ignores the concept of plausibility.

OK, teach me this concept of plausibility. Honestly it just sounds like bullshit at this point.

Citation required.

OK:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inanimate

1. not animate; lifeless

Also a definition of what you mean by inanimate matter vs animate matter.

See above.

I see you ignored my example of a car being made up of inanimate matter, yet no one would argue that a car can't be animated.

I ignored it because it's stupid. First, in this context, I'm obviously using animate/inanimate regarding life, not in the sense of motion as with the car. Second, yes, in the weaker definition the car can be built and animated - by intelligent designers. We've never seen a car arise spontaneously, and life is much more complex than a car.

What you are doing is performing a fallacy of composition. It is energy that animates the car. The only difference between inanimate and animated matter is whether there is a flow of energy through it that can perform work. I could have instead used the example of an ice crystal growing, or snow recrystalising over time while the temperature (energy) changes but stays below freezing.

I'm talking about life, not snowflakes. If you need to define life broadly enough to include such in order to make your point, you're a perfect example of what I'm saying to emjay.

Returning to the concept of plausibility, we can see examples of how matter is animated by energy with crystalisation. We can make use of the flow of free energy it by creating engines. Therefore it is plausible to think of life as working in a similar way but on a much smaller level. Cells are essentially molecular engines. This is why we eat. To provide the energy. If we don't get that energy then we die and our life ceases. We know the exact mechanisms of how energy powers cells to perform work. We know how energy continually animates matter into complex patterns of order and also why. Abiogenesis as a form of self organisation is plausible.

We've seen snowflakes. We've seen man-made (i.e. intelligently designed) engines. Therefore...abiogenesis is plausible. Sorry, that logic doesn't work for me.

What is not plausible is that some non-corporeal intelligence made up of only energy and not matter is able to continually scan your brain, understand how it functions and know when you are praying and when you are not, and then interact with the world to answer those prayers. Not only that but do it for everyone else in the world at the same time.

Why isn't that plausible? You need to give specific ways for us to measure plausibility. Otherwise, you're just dressing up things that you fancy and trying to make them sound better supported than they really are.

For this to even start becoming plausible, you would have to show that telepathy exists, that energy can persist as a complex ordered pattern without the use of matter and that there is some physical mechanism that could allow a brain to be scanned and the information transmitted back to a non-corporeal being.

So, for my view to even start becoming plausible, we have to show all that. But for you, car + snowflake = abiogenesis plausible. Complete bullshit.

No. At the point of the Big Bang there was only energy. Matter came afterwards. Nor would I ever say that there was ever a point in the universe's history where all matter was inanimate. Although that's not to say that we won't reach that point at the heat death of the universe.

And again you're playing word games with "inanimate."