RE: Atheism is impossible, I don't see how life can be created naturalistically.
September 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I have to be brief I'm at work.
Cells were inanimate fact, and yes they did originally not have life, unless that guy from NASA was lying on that programme I watched.
If you can explain how it went from inanimate to life you will be doing one better than him, according to him they still cannot work that bit out.
I would have thought it was obvious, life is by definition is a struggle to survive, you've heard of the arms race phenomena? basically drove the variety of life we have .... Cambrian explosion (if I've spelt it right)?
Not so much ..... I am certainly not inserting the God element here at all, maybe Nicholas would but I am just playing devils advocate on his behalf.
(September 2, 2011 at 11:56 am)theVOID Wrote: For starters, cell's aren't inanimate. An inanimate object is essentially one that displays no sign of life since since cells are living they aren't inanimate. Technical difference I know but it pays to be precise.
Cells were inanimate fact, and yes they did originally not have life, unless that guy from NASA was lying on that programme I watched.
If you can explain how it went from inanimate to life you will be doing one better than him, according to him they still cannot work that bit out.
(September 2, 2011 at 11:56 am)theVOID Wrote: Thirdly, you seem to be presuming that there is some 'goal' to all of this, to "conquer the world", that is not the case. If you try and approach any field of naturalistic enquiry looking for intent, as you presume to be a feature of the world from a deistic/theistic perspective, you are never going to fully grasp what it is we believe to be true about reality.
I would have thought it was obvious, life is by definition is a struggle to survive, you've heard of the arms race phenomena? basically drove the variety of life we have .... Cambrian explosion (if I've spelt it right)?
(September 2, 2011 at 11:56 am)theVOID Wrote: All that aside there is a more fundamental issue here, that is the argument from incredulity that you are on the verge of committing. Presuming we could give you no explanation of either, or if you found our explanations lacking, you would invariably use this to conclude that there must be or this increases the probability of a deity, correct? If so you would be committing the logical fallacy known as the argument from personal incredulity - As you should already know the conclusions of fallacious arguments, while not necessarily false, are indefensible with any consideration for intellectual honesty, thus if you want to consider yourself a rational person basing your beliefs on fallacious arguments is counter productive.
Not so much ..... I am certainly not inserting the God element here at all, maybe Nicholas would but I am just playing devils advocate on his behalf.
