Chemical Origin of Life

[Minimalist]

" And what about babies that are born missing chunks of their brains?"



They become catholics.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but the idea that life comes from a soul is just silly. According to Catholics only humans have souls, I know you can't just copy/paste one religious dogma into another, but there's a lot of life out there that at least Catholics believe are soul-less. And what about babies that are born missing chunks of their brains? They are alive, yes in the sense they can breathe, their hearts beat, etc., but they don't have the parts necessary for communication, higher thought, etc. Are they soul-less?
I think the idea of a soul, and by extension the idea of a cohesive self, are handy tools that humans have developed in order to process our surroundings. Without the idea of a central self, how would we begin to process everything we see, hear, and feel from the world around us? I don't like the idea that when I die I'm going to wink out, there will be nothing left of my sense of "self." But not liking an idea is a poor excuse to create a delusion of an afterlife and particularly reincarnation.

Anyone can attribute a psychological reason for someone else accepting an idea that they don't agree with or can't understand. It's as easy for theists to do to atheists as the other way around.

[Ryantology]

Anyone can attribute a psychological reason for someone else accepting an idea that they don't agree with or can't understand. It's as easy for theists to do to atheists as the other way around.

It's almost certainly the accurate terms in which to describe a 'spiritual' experience.

[festive1]

Anyone can attribute a psychological reason for someone else accepting an idea that they don't agree with or can't understand. It's as easy for theists to do to atheists as the other way around.

I understand the phenomena you are getting at... A connectedness with others and nature/the universe at large, right? Simply because I understand it as a psychological process and you a religious one does not mean we aren't talking about the same thing. But since it can be measured by MRI and brain activity, I think psychology/neurology wins out.

[Anomalocaris]

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but the idea that life comes from a soul is just silly. According to Catholics only humans have souls, I know you can't just copy/paste one religious dogma into another, but there's a lot of life out there that at least Catholics believe are soul-less. And what about babies that are born missing chunks of their brains? They are alive, yes in the sense they can breathe, their hearts beat, etc., but they don't have the parts necessary for communication, higher thought, etc. Are they soul-less?
I think the idea of a soul, and by extension the idea of a cohesive self, are handy tools that humans have developed in order to process our surroundings. Without the idea of a central self, how would we begin to process everything we see, hear, and feel from the world around us? I don't like the idea that when I die I'm going to wink out, there will be nothing left of my sense of "self." But not liking an idea is a poor excuse to create a delusion of an afterlife and particularly reincarnation.

Anyone can attribute a psychological reason for someone else accepting an idea that they don't agree with or can't understand. It's as easy for theists to do to atheists as the other way around.

Talk is cheap. The rigor of precise definition, unique falsifiable prediction, repeatable verification, is not.

Come back with more than facile chant, and we might treat you as more than per-biotic scum.

[IATIA]

How do you answer this challenge?

The scientists must admit that they still do not know the origin of life. Their claim that they will soon prove a chemical origin of life is something like paying someone with a postdated check. Suppose I give you a postdated check for ten thousand dollars but I actually have no money. What is the value of that check? Scientists are claiming that their science is wonderful, but when a practical example is wanted, they say they will provide it in the future... The scientists cannot produce even a single blade of grass in their laboratories, yet they are claiming that life is produced from chemicals. What is this nonsense? Is no one questioning this? - Life Comes from Life, p. 10

They have created self-replicating molecules. One step at a time.

And BTW, in Texas that check is worth $10,000 the day it is written not the day that is written on the check.