Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[danielpalos]

Some atheists would not mind if a regiment of angels or a battalion of archangels, came down from Heaven, and "showed us how to live".

 

[Boss]

Yes you fall back on must be god when you don't know.

God of the gaps.

And even if we found the answer you'd still believe in God so no point filling in the gaps because we will never answer all your questions

In a sense, you are right but you destroy your own complaint. It doesn't matter what answers are found, God still did it. It's not a "fall back" position, it's just a given for someone who believes in God. No one is claiming they aren't interested in discovering HOW God did it. Unless that's YOUR perspective... you're saying "no point in filling in the gaps" as if your entire point of science exploration is to disprove God and if you can't do that, why bother?

Well guess what? Some people aren't exploiting science to push their anti-god agenda and are generally interested in discovering answers. They approach these questions with genuine curiosity and objectivity while maintaining a robust belief in something greater than self.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbitsand numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

Number 18 answers your questions

Why there is no god

There is nothing "supernatural" about God. Supernatural is something beyond the laws of nature and God is part of nature. In some sense, God IS nature.

And again.. no one is using god to fill the gaps. You keep yelping this but it's just not true as evidenced by this thread. We're all having the same open discussion on how life originated. You've failed to present anything scientific to support your magic bean theory or explain in any way, how life originated.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes you fall back on must be god when you don't know.

God of the gaps.

And even if we found the answer you'd still believe in God so no point filling in the gaps because we will never answer all your questions

In a sense, you are right but you destroy your own complaint. It doesn't matter what answers are found, God still did it. It's not a "fall back" position, it's just a given for someone who believes in God. No one is claiming they aren't interested in discovering HOW God did it. Unless that's YOUR perspective... you're saying "no point in filling in the gaps" as if your entire point of science exploration is to disprove God and if you can't do that, why bother?

Well guess what? Some people aren't exploiting science to push their anti-god agenda and are generally interested in discovering answers. They approach these questions with genuine curiosity and objectivity while maintaining a robust belief in something greater than self.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbitsand numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

Number 18 answers your questions

Why there is no god

There is nothing "supernatural" about God. Supernatural is something beyond the laws of nature and God is part of nature. In some sense, God IS nature.

And again.. no one is using god to fill the gaps. You keep yelping this but it's just not true as evidenced by this thread. We're all having the same open discussion on how life originated. You've failed to present anything scientific to support your magic bean theory or explain in any way, how life originated.

su·per·nat·u·ral

1. 1.
   attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Sounds like god to me.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Anyways yesterday I YouTube how life got started. Evolution is absolutely the way.

Evolution does NOT explain origin. Sorry.... it just doesn't. It's not even in the nature of the word itself. Look it up! For any evolving to happen, something HAS TO FIRST EXIST! If something doesn't exist, it can't evolve. You can find all kinds of things on YouTube but you are in some serious intellectual trouble if that's your basis of knowledge. Just sayin'.

You go by what makes sense to you even if it makes no sense to anyone else. It makes sense life got here during the great bombardment. Hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and most important carbon. Carbons the key. We know single cell bacteria multiply.

It was Nova. Do you really challenge Nova? I'll go with the information they're giving over your bullshit.

Technically, Boss is correct. Although many speak of abiogenesis as the evolution of life, it is really a misuse of the word.

Evolution occurs AFTER creation. Life changes into different life.

 

[MarkDuffy]

How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that.

Oh brother, here we go.

I am pro choice cuz I am pro life. I do not want an extended family to suffer from an unwanted baby. This is the extended family too. Single motherhood is hard on everyone, even if the baby is healthy.

You would sentence a couple to a terrible future just for what? So you could claim to be the "boss" of their life?

No wonder you picked that forum name. Mr. Macho, the imbecile.

In other species, unwanted babies are either killed or abandoned. They do it for life!

You actually just made my point.

You have justified killing another human being as a moral act. Your morals are based on your perception of what is moral. That's a subjective evaluation by the individual and it can (and does) change.

When I was young the Ten Commandments was Thou shalt not kill. They rewrote it into Thou shalt not Murder. Why? Moral killing.

War, Death Penalty is now morally justified. Onward Christian soldiers

 

[MarkDuffy]

You're the one missing the point. They have a pretty good theory on how life got started. But before we talk about it tell me your theory again

Well thank you for admitting that they don't really KNOW how life originated but to be honest, they don't really have a pretty good theory either. Abiogenesis is a theory that contradicts Biogenesis and there are about 157 varieties of abiogenesis theory, many of which are in conflict.

You are really stuck on biogenesis. Both appear to be true and biogenesis looks like it will stop abiogenesis if it gets in its way.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Life is made up of hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon. Nova said carbon was the key.

So does basically every 7th grade science book. Telling me the ingredients of life doesn't explain the origin. And yes, since all life is known to contain carbon, it appears carbon is the key.... that still isn't explaining origin.

Anyways, if I still believed in God I would have no problem with evolution.

My problem with MACROevoultion is not belief in God. It's a lack of Science. Until I find evidence it happened, I don't believe it. IF you want to believe something without evidence, that's up to you, but you can't pass it off as fact.

As I've said, if anything could've created something so miraculous to spring forth the trillions of life forms we have from some ambiguous single cell, it would be God! I simply can't accept it because I find no evidence to support it.

God made the first generation stars that led to our planet and the seed god planted may have come via comet and then single cells multiplied into the diverse life we see today.

Makes a lot more sense than yours. Yours requires suspending reality

I'm open to the idea that one meteor planted the single cell mammal bacteria dna and another comet might have planted the reptile seed.

So now, you believe in magic seeds... like Jack and the Beanstalk? Let me ask you... where did these "seeds" come from? Because, all the seeds I'm familiar with come from something living. Do you have ANY example of seeds that came from something inorganic?

Again... If these magic seeds of life came from the comets, you've still not explained origin of life. You may be telling us how it came to Earth but it already existed somewhere. But as a matter of physics, I don't agree with this theory anyway. While life can be resilient to extreme conditions, there is no evidence life could endure the vast coldness of deep space AND survive the tremendous heat entering the atmosphere of Earth. So, aside from not explaining origin of life, your theory isn't supported by our basic understanding of life and physics. You are the one suspending reality!

The sun. It's not living? Stars don't die? Stars aren't born? This is easy.

Evolution implies a process. Stars evolve and we are pretty sure we understand the process. The origin of life we think was not really a process.

 

[Boss]

I don't know what else to tell you Boss. You need to talk to a scientist if you still have a problem. And there may be things you are asking me that we don't know the answer to. Doesn't mean your god theory holds any value because it doesn't.

I talk to REAL scientists all the time. You have no basic understanding of science in general, best I can tell. You get your science knowledge from Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Yes... You don't know the answers! That's my whole entire fucking point! You don't know but you keep insisting you're sure.. that "Science" is certain! You want to argue nonsense like it's proven fact. When you're challenged on it, you want to appeal to popularity or authority and engage in silliness. THEN, attack ME for not living in reality!

 

[Boss]

su·per·nat·u·ral

1. 1.
   attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Sounds like god to me.

But God IS nature. God created the laws of nature.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Tardigrades can survive space. So a single cell bacteria with dna did fly in. They found carbon in the rocks.

Maybe one meteor brought mammals and one brought amphibians and one fish but science says no. We're all related

Tardigrades and bacteria cannot survive very long in the conditions of deep space. They also can't survive temps over 300 degrees and entering the Earth's atmosphere on a comet would require survival of temperature in the many thousands of degrees. But here is the big kicker... Tardigrades are already living, so they can't possibly explain the origin of life. Same is true for single cell bacteria, it's already living, you haven't explained how it originated.

DNA is not an element found in nature. It is an acid that contains genetic code for something living. So if IT came from outer space, it came from something already alive.... you see the problem here? You still haven't explained origin of life.

THEN... there's also the scientific fact that no one has ever reproduced multi-cellular life from single cell life.

Ahem

Can Spores Survive In Interstellar Space?

Space Station Research Shows That Hardy Little Space Travelers Could Colonize Mars

However, just like your spirit God, this begs the origin question.

 

[Boss]

When I was young the Ten Commandments was Thou shalt not kill. They rewrote it into Thou shalt not Murder. Why? Moral killing.

War, Death Penalty is now morally justified. Onward Christian soldiers

Well I hate to break this to you but the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and not English. So there have been numerous translations from the original text and various people and groups hold different interpretive opinions on what it means. That's precisely why there are thousands of Christian denominations. But I am not here to defend ANY interpretation. We were talking about morality.

Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Stefan Molyneux? He is an Atheist, you should check him out. He has a very unique take on morals and ethics in the debate of Atheism and religion. He feels that moral foundation is the biggest problem facing the future of Atheism. You have nothing on which your morals and ethics are founded other than self-proscribed claims to be able to adhere to a moral code. Religion offers something you can establish a moral foundation on and Atheism lacks that.

 

[Boss]

[
Ahem

Can Spores Survive In Interstellar Space?

Space Station Research Shows That Hardy Little Space Travelers Could Colonize Mars

However, just like your spirit God, this begs the origin question.

The origin question remains unanswered.

God does not require origin.. God is Spiritual.
Spiritual, unlike physical, is eternal and everlasting.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Tardigrades can survive space. So a single cell bacteria with dna did fly in. They found carbon in the rocks.

Maybe one meteor brought mammals and one brought amphibians and one fish but science says no. We're all related

Tardigrades and bacteria cannot survive very long in the conditions of deep space. They also can't survive temps over 300 degrees and entering the Earth's atmosphere on a comet would require survival of temperature in the many thousands of degrees. But here is the big kicker... Tardigrades are already living, so they can't possibly explain the origin of life. Same is true for single cell bacteria, it's already living, you haven't explained how it originated.

DNA is not an element found in nature. It is an acid that contains genetic code for something living. So if IT came from outer space, it came from something already alive.... you see the problem here? You still haven't explained origin of life.

THEN... there's also the scientific fact that no one has ever reproduced multi-cellular life from single cell life.

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Multiple times independently!

 

[Boss]

You're the one missing the point. They have a pretty good theory on how life got started. But before we talk about it tell me your theory again

Well thank you for admitting that they don't really KNOW how life originated but to be honest, they don't really have a pretty good theory either. Abiogenesis is a theory that contradicts Biogenesis and there are about 157 varieties of abiogenesis theory, many of which are in conflict.

You are really stuck on biogenesis. Both appear to be true and biogenesis looks like it will stop abiogenesis if it gets in its way.

Biogenesis remains a true scientific hypothesis until it's disproved. I'm sorry about that... I hate it destroys your conjecture that life spontaneously created itself. If and when you discover science to support your theory, have it peer reviewed and published and we'll see you in Stockholm, Sweden accepting your beautiful award. Until that happens, you're not going to lay claim to truth on the matter. Biogenesis stands.

 

[MarkDuffy]

When I was young the Ten Commandments was Thou shalt not kill. They rewrote it into Thou shalt not Murder. Why? Moral killing.

War, Death Penalty is now morally justified. Onward Christian soldiers

Well I hate to break this to you but the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and not English. So there have been numerous translations from the original text and various people and groups hold different interpretive opinions on what it means. That's precisely why there are thousands of Christian denominations. But I am not here to defend ANY interpretation. We were talking about morality.

Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Stefan Molyneux? He is an Atheist, you should check him out. He has a very unique take on morals and ethics in the debate of Atheism and religion. He feels that moral foundation is the biggest problem facing the future of Atheism. You have nothing on which your morals and ethics are founded other than self-proscribed claims to be able to adhere to a moral code. Religion offers something you can establish a moral foundation on and Atheism lacks that.

We can only be moral when some big dude in the sky defines it?

OK, that's funny.

 

[Boss]

Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Multiple times independently!

Single-cell life has NEVER evolved into multicellular life. There is ZERO evidence it has, other than the mere existence of multicellular life. Evolution of multicellular life is not crossing that bridge, the bridge has already been crossed.

 

[Boss]

When I was young the Ten Commandments was Thou shalt not kill. They rewrote it into Thou shalt not Murder. Why? Moral killing.

War, Death Penalty is now morally justified. Onward Christian soldiers

Well I hate to break this to you but the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and not English. So there have been numerous translations from the original text and various people and groups hold different interpretive opinions on what it means. That's precisely why there are thousands of Christian denominations. But I am not here to defend ANY interpretation. We were talking about morality.

Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Stefan Molyneux? He is an Atheist, you should check him out. He has a very unique take on morals and ethics in the debate of Atheism and religion. He feels that moral foundation is the biggest problem facing the future of Atheism. You have nothing on which your morals and ethics are founded other than self-proscribed claims to be able to adhere to a moral code. Religion offers something you can establish a moral foundation on and Atheism lacks that.

We can only be moral when some big dude in the sky defines it?

OK, that's funny.

Hey, I am just relaying what an actual Atheist said. Take it up with him!

 

[MarkDuffy]

[
Ahem

Can Spores Survive In Interstellar Space?

Space Station Research Shows That Hardy Little Space Travelers Could Colonize Mars

However, just like your spirit God, this begs the origin question.

The origin question remains unanswered.

God does not require origin.. God is Spiritual.
Spiritual, unlike physical, is eternal and everlasting.

LOL, so you claim

 

[MarkDuffy]

You're the one missing the point. They have a pretty good theory on how life got started. But before we talk about it tell me your theory again

Well thank you for admitting that they don't really KNOW how life originated but to be honest, they don't really have a pretty good theory either. Abiogenesis is a theory that contradicts Biogenesis and there are about 157 varieties of abiogenesis theory, many of which are in conflict.

You are really stuck on biogenesis. Both appear to be true and biogenesis looks like it will stop abiogenesis if it gets in its way.

Biogenesis remains a true scientific hypothesis until it's disproved. I'm sorry about that... I hate it destroys your conjecture that life spontaneously created itself. If and when you discover science to support your theory, have it peer reviewed and published and we'll see you in Stockholm, Sweden accepting your beautiful award. Until that happens, you're not going to lay claim to truth on the matter. Biogenesis stands.

Since you have God on speed dial, can you ask him for a wayback machine for me? Christmas is coming!

 

[sealybobo]

Anyways yesterday I YouTube how life got started. Evolution is absolutely the way.

Evolution does NOT explain origin. Sorry.... it just doesn't. It's not even in the nature of the word itself. Look it up! For any evolving to happen, something HAS TO FIRST EXIST! If something doesn't exist, it can't evolve. You can find all kinds of things on YouTube but you are in some serious intellectual trouble if that's your basis of knowledge. Just sayin'.

You go by what makes sense to you even if it makes no sense to anyone else. It makes sense life got here during the great bombardment. Hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and most important carbon. Carbons the key. We know single cell bacteria multiply.

It was Nova. Do you really challenge Nova? I'll go with the information they're giving over your bullshit.

Technically, Boss is correct. Although many speak of abiogenesis as the evolution of life, it is really a misuse of the word.

Evolution occurs AFTER creation. Life changes into different life.

I know he's correct because he's assuming I made a mistake I did not. I didn't confuse evolution and creation. Got it? Thanks. Don't let Boss put words into our mouths.