(October 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Thanks for a more polite response. With you, I can just respectfully agree to disagree. But with full respect.
I agree that it might be true. I just don't have to swallow it until there's proof. I think that's how a lot of atheists feel about God, right? Tend to be real skeptical, right? That's how I feel about the life comes from chemistry hypothesis.
Thanks for the distinction between theory and hypothesis.
You're very welcome, I think. The thing about agreeing to disagree, however, is that it only works when neither side of a two-sided debate has any more claim to validity than the other. If you are as sceptical about chemistry giving rise to life as you say, then the burden of proof is on you to support that position. It's not merely a question of being sceptical for scepticism's sake; the person deviating from the default position, or the one proposing some additional factor to the system, needs to bring it or evidence of it to the table. Otherwise, what are we to sink our teeth into, apart from my yummy cake?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
