The missing ingredient is ... probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 10:36 AM)le_bard Wrote:  How is pointing out that being wrong about abiogenesis will not affect the argument for the existence of god any of what you said?
Consider Could you reword that one?
Quote:Abiogenesis is false, therefore god is a complete non sequitur. When the creationist attempts to debunk science (ergo punching a bystander) he does not make HIS argument more likely.

I don't think that abiogenesis is wrong, but tell me, please. What about the disproval of abiogenesis will make the idea of a being creating life from nothing ... MORE LIKELY?
The fact that there are currently no other explanations (aside from variations on "being," but still a creator of some sort).
Quote:It's like assuming that mcdonalds burgers MUST be better because red robins burgers suck. Non. sequitur.
That's a bad analogy. Both burgers could suck, or both could be great, and people can disagree as it's subjective. Regarding life OTOH, I think we all agree that life exists in the universe, and that life did not always exist in the universe, and so life started in the universe. Further I think we agree that there are two and only two categories of explanations for the start of life: creation and abiogenesis. It's much different than burgers.

Further, your protest is ad hoc or special pleading. When challenged on evolution, atheists frequently criticize creationist positions. They apparently think that when there are only two alternatives, attacking one strengthens the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 10:55 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 10:36 AM)le_bard Wrote:  How is pointing out that being wrong about abiogenesis will not affect the argument for the existence of god any of what you said?
Consider Could you reword that one?
Quote:Abiogenesis is false, therefore god is a complete non sequitur. When the creationist attempts to debunk science (ergo punching a bystander) he does not make HIS argument more likely.

I don't think that abiogenesis is wrong, but tell me, please. What about the disproval of abiogenesis will make the idea of a being creating life from nothing ... MORE LIKELY?
The fact that there are currently no other explanations (aside from variations on "being," but still a creator of some sort).
Quote:It's like assuming that mcdonalds burgers MUST be better because red robins burgers suck. Non. sequitur.
That's a bad analogy. Both burgers could suck, or both could be great, and people can disagree as it's subjective. Regarding life OTOH, I think we all agree that life exists in the universe, and that life did not always exist in the universe, and so life started in the universe. Further I think we agree that there are two and only two categories of explanations for the start of life: creation and abiogenesis. It's much different than burgers.

Further, your protest is ad hoc or special pleading. When challenged on evolution, atheists frequently criticize creationist positions. They apparently think that when there are only two alternatives, attacking one strengthens the other.

All right stop. You could be building a false dichotomy.
You must PROVE that creation and abiogenesis are the ONLY 2 options.
In order to avoid possibility of false dichotomy you should use direct logical negation.
Either life was created by a god. Or a life was not created by a god.
Those are the only 2 options.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like donotwant's post
26-02-2014, 10:58 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 11:27 AM by rampant.a.i..)
The missing ingredient is ... probability
False dilemma fallacy:
"It is improbable a chicken sandwich created the universe: Therefore a ham sandwich created the universe" is not a logical argument.

Argument from ignorance:
Leaving out unknown mechanisms other than abiogenesis.

Special pleading:
Evidence for abiogenesis has been shown.
No evidence has been shown for the claim <God exists>, let alone <God created the universe>.

Denying the antecedent:
If Abiogenesis does not work, God created the universe. Abiogenesis does not work, therefore God created the universe.

Again, thank you for the exemplary example of how theists fail to understand logical probability.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
26-02-2014, 11:09 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
Btw a dichotomy should be exhastive AND exclusive. Which means it can be ONLY abiogenesis OR god did it. And you must prove that god could not create abiogenesis. Otherwise it's not a dichotomy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
Btw just for the heads up once we established a dichotomy you can start evaluating probability of life is constructed by a god versus life is not constructed by a god, which you can't begin doing unless you demonstrate that it is possible for god to exist in the first place. Good luck with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like donotwant's post
26-02-2014, 11:25 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
Quote:The fact that there are currently no other explanations (aside from variations on "being," but still a creator of some sort).

The lack of explanations mean nothing if you lack evidence for you position. Which is the main reason for why even if abiogenesis was wrong, creationism would still be rejected. We could have no other explanation for the existence of, i dunno, pluto, and still would reject the only claim that tries to explain pluto's existence if it's just false and based on ignorance.

Quote:That's a bad analogy. Both burgers could suck, or both could be great, and people can disagree as it's subjective. Regarding life OTOH, I think we all agree that life exists in the universe, and that life did not always exist in the universe, and so life started in the universe. Further I think we agree that there are two and only two categories of explanations for the start of life: creation and abiogenesis. It's much different than burgers.
No, actually there aren't just two categories for explanation. Explanations can come from anyone, anytime.

In terms of semantics, you could easily say that it's all creation: abiogenesis being creation of life from non life and creationism being creation of life via a supernatural god. In that case, there can be billions of possible explanations for the creation of life. But the only valid one thus far is backed up by science. Creationism has a ways to go before becoming a science, and while trying to tear away at abiogenesis and evolution
can help a little, the real test of validity is evidence for creationism, which unfortunately also fail. The explanation for the creation of life could be that the sun's rays gave the earth energy enough to spew out cells, multiplying until becoming life. But until we have something validated by scientific research it's just a fairy tale.

Because of this, while many in the scientific community would love valid arguments against abiogenesis, addressing the question to an atheist will only go so far. If you sincerely wanted to talk about and address why someone doesn't believe in god you should address the heart of the issue: faith and evidence. Not evolution. It's not special pleading if evolution isn't even a tenant of atheism

Quote:Further, your protest is ad hoc or special pleading. When challenged on evolution, atheists frequently criticize creationist positions. They apparently think that when there are only two alternatives, attacking one strengthens the other.

People have given you articles about abiogenesis, which you refused to read thinking that it had nothing to do with anything. Either that or you read it and really thought that formation of hydrocarbons has nothing to do with the formation of carbon based life.
There are huge threads atheists take part in dedicating to elaborate on the ignorance of evolutionary theory to point out why creationist attacks against it are demonstrably false.

I highly doubt most atheists feel better about evolution after pointing out how false the accusations creationists give are. Same with abiogenesis. It doesn't strengthen our position, it weakens yours. However attacking creationism shakes the belief system of a creationist because creation is part of your religion. You HAVE to hold to it. Atheists won't have their lack of belief shaken by abiogenesis and evolution being debunked tomorrow. Because their lack of belief in a god had more to do with the lack of evidence for a god than evolution or anything else.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes le_bard's post
26-02-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
At first I thought you guys just weren't willing to back down from a mistake. Now I'm beginning to think that you actually believe that you've demonstrated that abiogenesis has been proven. Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:28 AM
The missing ingredient is ... probability
It seems to me, considering Alpha Male's death grip on Abiogenesis, he has no other argument to present.

And still is unwilling to admit the only argument he's presented is fallacious:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
26-02-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
It is not proven that life on earth arised from abiogenesis but it has been proven in a lab that life can arise from abiogenesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 11:28 AM)alpha male Wrote:  At first I thought you guys just weren't willing to back down from a mistake. Now I'm beginning to think that you actually believe that you've demonstrated that abiogenesis has been proven. Shocking

It's like we say one thing and you shit out something else completely unrelated.

So when i say that the debunking of abiogenesis as an explanation for the origin of life won't make creationism any more valid, you hear "la dee da abiogenesis is god"

Or when we point out to you that your objections about abiogenesis, which still could be disproven tomorrow as a theory for the origin of life and not bolster creationism, are fallacious and give out articles to inform you of why they are fallacious, you hear "abiogenesis is god"

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: