The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2016, 04:15 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:22 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:07 AM)u196533 Wrote:  1. The 2nd Law of Thermo applies to ALL systems. That argument has already been debunked in this thread.

Yes, it does, but entropy can decrease locally where energy is supplied.

Quote:2. This is not an argument based solely on thermodynamics. It is chemical thermodynamics. A chemical reaction will not occur spontaneously if the system increases energy and lowers entropy. You can put them in a test tube add activation energy and shake it up all you want, but they will not react by themselves.
Whenever a reaction like that does occur, something external was at play. The result is a system in an unstable state that will break down as soon as it reaches activation energy.

Facepalm
Asserting that again doesn't make it any more true.

It is not assertion. It is a basic concept of chemistry. If you do not accept that, you really should not be in this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:18 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:44 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.

Rolleyes So it boils down to "I can't believe it's anything else, therefore deity".

You talk of the mind-boggling complexity of life, are you aware that we have a fossil record right from very early cellular life to the present day? We can trace the development of complex organisms. There's no deity involved there. So essentially what you're saying is that your belief in a deity rests on your idea that somehow when we reduce things down to single cells a single cell is just waaay too complex to evolve by itself? Doesn't seem so very compelling.
No. I am convinced abiogenesis could not have happened naturally. That implies some unknown force or entity that only acts on living things.
I mentioned the complexity of life because that implies that entity has intelligence, but that is secondary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:20 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:41 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.

In the past that logic was applied to weather, natural disasters and other phenomena.

Worst of all, even if that did indicate a creator being, there is still no indication that such a being would give a rat's ass about humanity.

My argument is not based purely on the complexity of life. The complexity does imply intelligence though.
I concur that there is no evidence that whatever created us gives a rat's ass. (There is evidence of the opposite.) That is why I don't pray to a personal God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  IMHO, the evidence clearly suggests that some unknown force is responsible for life. I see no other explanation for chemicals defying the entropic drive to equilibrium.

Your incredulity is not an argument.

(27-07-2016 11:35 AM)u196533 Wrote:  But according to you, amoebas ARE just a collection of atoms, and should behave just like all other collections of atoms.

No, I've said repeatedly that your reductionist approach is the problem. You're obviously too dense to understand what anybody is saying.

Science and atheism are inherently reductionistic. Either you are a materialist that believes everything can be explained via science, or you are not. You can't have it both ways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  IMHO, the evidence clearly suggests that some unknown force is responsible for life. I see no other explanation for chemicals defying the entropic drive to equilibrium.

Your incredulity is not an argument.

It is not incredulity. Consider the whole process of abiogenesis from replicator molecule to something that is clearly alive.
Those chemical reactions could not continue to occur for millions of years without violating the based thermodynamic drives of chemistry. It's not incredible. Its impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:31 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:55 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:48 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Atheism is based on reductionism whether you realize it or not.

You do understand that atheism is not based on abiogenesis and evolution, right? If you could show that it did not happen the way it is currently outlined it would do absolutely nothing to support that a god was a better explanation. You would need to provide evidence for that. Saying that you don't see how it happened isn't carte blanche to make up magical solutions.

I do understand that. It biols down to what is the most reasonable conclusion. A creator is more reasonable than any alternative I have ever heard proposed by an atheist.

Take away abiogenesis and evolution and there would not be too many atheists left, though. (btw- I don't deny evolution.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:43 AM)u196533 Wrote:  If an event violates th[e] [known] laws of science, then it is supernatural something we need to investigate.

Fixt that for you.

Quote:That had to have happened according to the abiogenesis narrative.

You really are dense.

So are you acknowledging that there is an unknown force or law of science that only acts on living things?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 04:18 PM)u196533 Wrote:  No. I am convinced abiogenesis could not have happened naturally. That implies some unknown force or entity that only acts on living things.
I mentioned the complexity of life because that implies that entity has intelligence, but that is secondary.

You're convinced! Well I'm sold. Where do I go to join the Kriegsmarine with you?

Actually to be serious. You being easily satisfied by nonsense does not apply here. You must do a hell of a lot better than this foolishness. We are not so easily convinced.

7 posts in a row must be a new record?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:35 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 12:08 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  IMHO, the evidence clearly suggests that some unknown force is responsible for life. I see no other explanation for chemicals defying the entropic drive to equilibrium.
When there is a drive to decompose, I see no explanation for the organization to begin with. Only atoms in living systems exhibit that behavior.

The fact that it only seems to act on living organisms suggests that it is not some other force that has yet to be discovered.

The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.

“IMHO” has no place in science. Either you can prove your hypothesis or you can’t.

Argument from Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance does not make for a compelling hypothesis. Drinking Beverage

I admit is is kinda the chicken or the egg. If you could prove abiogenesis, then I could prove it could not have happened naturally. Since you can't prove abiogenesis, I only have logic and reasoning, but no evidence. That's the rub.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 12:08 PM)Loom Wrote:  So by your own admission, you conclude there MUST be a supernatural cause to the formation of life despite the fact that scientists
have only just started touching on the subject of abiogenisis, and claim that science will never be able to explain something that is currently not entirely understood...

Yeah...and you wonder why people aren't taking you seriously here...

Scientists have been looking at abiogenesis for over 100 years. The last 30 years have been brutal. The more we learn about molecular biology, the longer the list of enormous hurdles for abiogenesis grows. I used to think it was possible. I no longer do.
Now that some of the pioneers have dies, there aren't that many taking their place.
People are actually taking panspermia seriously because abiogenssis is dead in the water.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: