Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Thumpalumpacus]

To Thumpalumpacus

It is special pleading because you are asserting by fiat that your godling can imbue life in the non-living, while asserting that organic chemistry cannot, all the while having zero support for either claim.

One, I asserted nothing by fiat. I merely told you my presuppositions and the logical conclusion I come to because of them.

Nonsense. Calling your claims "presuppositions" adds nothing but four syllables. Fancy verbiage aside, you're still making a bald claim, that your god can imbue life into the nonliving, while also making the bald claim that organic chemistry cannot do so.

You do not know either thing.

Two, I never asserted that organic chemistry cannot imbue life in the non-living. You are the one who takes the position that it has. (If I am mischaracterizing your position, please explain what you really think.)

My position is I don't know, and neither do you. I can admit it. Your skepticism of organic chemistry is shot through your replies. If you think it might explain how life arose, perhaps you should tailor your words to better reflect your views, because as matters stand, your words clearly imply that organic chemistry is no answer at all. You simply lack the fortitude to say it openly, probably for argumentative-tactical reasons; you don't want to be nailed down to a position.

I would just argue that scientists have not demonstrated that it is possible and you have not shown otherwise. While I don't think it will ever be demonstrated, I would not make the positive claim that it cannot.

I don't know whether it happened as the various hypotheses describe or not.

Consequently, I still think I did not commit special pleading.

You did, because you claimed that your god could imbue the nonliving with life while at the same time (and fully admitting being possibly wrong!) implying that organic chemistry cannot do that.

I agree that all hypotheses are not equal. I also agree that we can see organic chemistry at work any day of the week. But that does not lead you any closer to proving that life and come from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms.

Well, it's a good thing I am not trying to change your mind about things. See, I don't give a shit what you think, until you start imputing stuff onto others like myself. I don't care enough about you to want to change your mind. I'll be happy to discuss evidences, but I have no emotional investment in your outlook, because I can already see that you're dug-in for a fight. I have better uses for my artillery than yet another god-warrior online.

Regarding your "god hypothesis" comment, I think you totally misunderstand where I am coming from. God existing is not a hypothesis that can be proven with evidence in a scientific manner.

You clearly don't speak sarcasm.

To me beginning with God existing and the Bible being the Word of God results in a much more consistent position than anything else I have come across.

So what? I haven't seen any reason to mark you as a thinker of note; you cannot even acknowledge your own fallacies when they're pointed out to you. Your opinion is worth every penny I've paid for it.

The fact is, so far, nobody here has explained how their positions lead to meaningful definitions of words such as "good" and "bad". Again, that is not to say atheists cannot be "good" people. I am still wondering what arguments you use to make a case for "goodness"/"badness". A position that cannot make such an argument but uses the terms seems inconsistent and irrational to me.

That "nobody here" includes you as well.

I don't think you can make a case for good or bad myself, because you've clearly adopted a command morality, and passed the heavy lifting over to some deity you believe exists rather than accepting responsibility for your own decisions.

Perhaps you need to be told what is right and what is wrong. Myself and many others need not appeal to anything other than empathy. I didn't need to read a book to know that, say, stealing is wrong, or kicking someone in the teeth is bad. It's not that hard to figure out, really.

How have I insulted you? What names have I called you?

I find your proclivity for broad generalizations interesting.

I think there was a miscommunication based on how I posted. My quote that you were responding to was one I did separately after I posted the one to you. The forum programming combined them. It was intended to be a generalization. The name calling issue was directed mostly, if not exclusively, to Minimalist. The failing to answer questions would probably apply to most, but I would have to go back and look at individual posts.

Note, I am engaging several of you here so it is hard not to generalize. Please feel free to provide your position on things and I will certainly try to engage you on a one to one basis.

Yes, you are generalizing, and you should not do so. You said we're all being insulting, and not all of us are. So either you can practice nuance, or catch grief for sloppy thinking. It's not my problem, but I sure as hell won't let your overbroad generalization slide without comment. If that discomfits you, perhaps you should, you know, say what you actually mean.

You know my "position on things". You also know that I'm not cussing at you or calling you names. You should take care not to broad-brush people -- and if you do, you should not be surprised when they pipe up.