It sounds like you are separating yourself from the universe , as if you are standing on the outside looking in ?
1 Like
Then what is all this talk of a lifeless universe? Do you even pay attentiobn to the shit you spew?
3 Likes
I’m only going with what is the prevailing point of view in evolutionary science - Life begins around 4 billion years ago. Big bang theory is around 14 billion years ago . According to generally accepted maths that leaves around 10 billion years of what might be termed lifeless universe . Feel free to correct any of that with any updated news on the origin of life
I’ve already corrected it in a previous post.
1 Like
No you didn’t . According to the generally accepted theory of the origins of life it began around 4 billion years ago . If you have any other information that modifies this then kindly post it . If there is no origin of life then why does evolutionary theory claim there is ?
It evolved, same as every other time you’ve asked, and even if we had no idea, your claim that this evidences a deity is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Also atheism is not a philosophy, and you have failed to offer a single word that demonstrates any overarching purpose to life, beyond the subjective purpose humans attach to their lives.
Your position is irrational, since it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, this type of fallacy is most often used by people who have poor reasoning skills, to try and deflect the burden of proof their claims and beliefs have. It won’t become any less irrational from repetition, and since you have failed to address it honestly even once, it also also very dishonest to repeat it as if you don’t know it is illogical.
Easy, no one knows that this planet is the only or the first planet on which life as emerged, you are yet again making a claim, which carries a burden of proof you can’t support.
Another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you made yet another poorly thought out and unevidenced claim, that the universe was lifeless prior to life emerging on this planet, you can’t possibly know this.
I’m not aware of any such scientific theory, are you using a word as rhetoric again, and dishonestly trying to pretend it is a scientific theory by any chance?
We only know of one instance where life has emerged in this universe, but you have again through poor reasoning, made a sweeping assertion you can’t support, your error is in nit realising that not knowing of any other instances where life has emerged in the universe, does not mean there were and are none.
You simply keep making the same epistemological mistake over and over again, as you haven’t even the most basic understanding of informal logic, or how to reason. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that:
- A belief is the affirmation of a claim.
- All claims and therefore all beliefs, carry an epistemological burden of proof proportional to the nature of the claim.
- That disbelieving a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim, and therefore disbelief does not on its own carry any burden of proof.
- Insisting people disprove your belief, is an known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Whilst your posts have failed to grasp all 4, you also started with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and it appears to be all you have, as you use it in almost every argument, and seem unable to offer anything more. Worse still you don’t seem to have the integrity to acknowledge this fact, or correct this basic error in reasoning on which all your arguments are based.
You also ignored this claim you made and my repsonses:
An honest poster, with a sound rationale, would not fear answering questions exploring the rationality of their claims. If you’re convinced your claims are rational, and that post suggest you are, then why the refusal to answer?
To help you, HERE is a guide to the most used common logical fallacies.
NB Fallacious arguments are irrational by definition, they are weak or poorly reasoned, as the site explains, and it will help anyone who wishes to understand how to avoid this. FYI I didn’t contribute to the site or to any principles of logic, so your claim that we disagree on what constitutes what is rational is absurd, since something either does or does not adhere to the principles of logic, logic is designed precisely to eliminate such subjective opinions. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, that is what the word means. FYI no scientific evidence could pass peer review and become part of an accepted scientific theory, if it violated any principle of logic, so if you are disputing peer reviewed scientific evidence (that for example @Calilasseia has shared) you are simply wrong. If you are asserting that claims I have made about the evolution of human emotions are irrational or nor in accordance with the principles of logic, then please demonstrate this, or again I shall have to assume you used the word purely as rhetoric, in a futile attempt to wave away your own use of logical fallacies.
Ask yourself, how often do you go back and check your posts for such errors, how often do you fact check claims for objective evidence to support them, how often do you share that evidence here, or how often are your claims completely unevidenced, like your claims above about love, and about logic, where you offer nothing to evidence or explain why you believe those claims to be true?
You said you came here to learn and because you were curious, well this is a good chance to demonstrate that to be true. You can learn how to create well reasoned, and strong arguments if you do nothing else. Of course if this is not possible for a particular belief, you may want to ask yourself what you should infer from that fact.
I have explained this before to others who imply I am being biased, I don’t disbelieve your claims because I am an atheist, I am an atheist because the claims presented are poorly reasoned, and unsupported by any objective evidence.
Needless to say I will be scrupulously fair, honest and open minded, as I always strive to be, as I care more about whether a believe is true than about any belief, and there is no belief I won’t abandon if either logic or objective evidence demands it, and if I find I have used any logical fallacy I will admit that my argument in that instance was invalid, and edit my post accordingly if I am still able. (there’s a time limit on editing posts)
A refusal to engage will leave only one inference I can make.
Since you have ignored the unavoidable inference is that you are being deliberately dishonest, by trying to peddle the same irrational arguments.
1 Like
@Sid
Define life is an endless debate
Not really. There is a basic agreed upon premise. **Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli. Our physical body is host to a universe of life.
It can never be answered definitively because scientific knowledge is always expanding and with it comes an always expanding bigger set of questions that we aren’t even aware of . 
This is what I love about science. The curiosity. The search for knowledge. A simple premise can be a starting point. Perhaps you’re confusing categories within “life” … eg “intelligent life” vs “bacteria”
I would say that a better way of looking at the question of life is to ask what life is ?
I need a rewording because “what life is” can be answered with any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli
That would bring us full circle back to the question of how love, justice etc fit into a philosophy that believes that there is no meaning or purpose
Based on this you believe you’ve brought me full circle to a philosophy. Your philosophy. That’s OK but you didn’t 
do so logically SO firstly, meaning or purpose is something a person puts into their life. It can change.
My position is that the burden of proof clearly lays at the feet of the atheist rather than the theist to give a coherent explanation of the qualitative from the position they espouse
So I with-hold belief. That requires a burden of proof? IF this is a standard for “burden of proof” that you adhere to it HAS to be applied everywhere in your life or standard for any information. OTHERWISE it’s dishonest and bias.
For example- my standard for evidence is “small claims court” (think Judge Judy). I apply it to ALL claims including scientific or medical or financial purchases or stories. I have a BIG pile of “I don’t know” sitting in my head waiting for further evidence.
3 Likes
@Sid, although you respond to some posts, you seen unable or unwilling to provide many direct answers to direct questions. I, for one, would very much like to explore more about your theism. You make it very difficult to do so by providing only what sound to me like dodgy answers to pretty simple questions. It’s really hard to understand your reasoning because we can’t get past your initial thoughts.
So, I copied what I asked earlier in an attempt to keep traveling down the road you started by asserting theist values were stolen. Are you willing/able to continue exploring that? Are you willing/able to do so by not answering questions with questions? The mystery and seeming evasiveness are wearing.
Saying no to this is perfectly acceptable, too. Just let me know one way or the other.
2 Likes
Do you think that life has only ever existed on this tiny rock? What makes you think that the human race is so special and that we’re the only intelligent life in the galaxy?
Oh yeah, the Bible.
Ignorance and arrogance defined.
2 Likes
Heh, there have benn numerous news reports of late, to the effect that NASA is planning missions to Europa and Enceladus, in order to determine if there exists indigenous life in the subsurface oceans of those two bodies.
Though of course, NASA isn’t expecting to find little green men, instead they’ll be popping the champagne corks if they find indigenous single celled life forms. The data already obtained about the presence of organic molecules relevant to life here on Earth, is the driving force behind considering it worth spending the money on those missions.
Though in my case, I would consider it even better, if one of those bodies turned out to have its own fully functioning RNA world. That would be a killer blow to all the prebiotic chemistry denialists. It wouldn’t just be me celebrating such a find either - pretty much every contributor to RNA world chemistry research, from Jack Szostak downwards, would also be reaching for the bubbly.
Mind you, until those missions are sent, and we receive data informing us of what’s present in the subsurface oceans of those bodies, thre’s still scope for some interesting science fiction to be written, including fiction involving an entire Ediacaran style biota living there. Though if NASA’s space missions find that, this will really put the cat among the pigeons.
Of course, I’ve already covered peer reviewed scientific papers documenting that relevant organic molecules are not only present in meteorites and interstellar gas clouds, but that synthesis thereof under the requisite conditions replicated in the laboratory has already been demonstrated. Organic molecules implicated in terrestrial life are abundant in the universe, so it would be strange indeed if Earth was the only body in the universe harbouring life.
It is, of course, possible that Earth is one of the first bodies to acquire a substantial biosphere, and any others that have done so are simply too far dispersed for us to know anything about them. But the ubiquity of organic chemistry lends credence to the idea that life should not only be present elsewhere, but potentially in sufficient abundance for accessible entities to supply us with useful data on the matter. By “accessible” here, I mean of course bodies providing relevant spectroscopic data, as opposed to bodies we can actually visit such as Enceladus, and the JWST is already serving up some interesting findings in this vein.
Meanwhile, indulging some humour for a moment, I pondered the idea of creating a cartoon series based on the recent crash of the Beresheet lunar spacecraft from Israel, which carried with it a cargo of Tardigrades. It occurred to me that Jewish Tardigrades In Space would be a fun comic to write. 
Though I have to admit that lunar rock wouldn’t provide much of a diet for them, though they wouldn’t have to worry about it being Kosher …
2 Likes
They espouse a lack of belief in your as yet completely unevidenced claim a deity exists, is possible, and caused stuff…
Your ball, Bullwinkle…
2 Likes
I’ve already cited the electromagneteic spectrum as an example of this. Is he going to engage in honest discourse for once in his miserable life?
2 Likes
Press E to doubt.
Oh dear, I broke my E button, whelp time for a new keyboard.
DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ?
As previously stated, and as you have unwittingly agreed to in your post above, this has been discussed.
3 Likes
Since @Sid clearly won’t engage at all over his relentless use of known logical fallacies we will examine them with out him, for our own edification.
Here is his first post:
We saw after much prevarication that he was here using a false equivalence fallacy, where he dishonestly equated the subjective meaning that humans attach to their lives, with the notion the universe itself has or is even capable of having meaning. NB the universe containing meaning is very different to the universe itself having meaning. He deliberately ignored this difference, using a false equivalence.
NB Worthy of note here he posted this in a thread asking what is the biggest lie, despite no one here ever claiming that the universe didn’t contain meaning. So was also of course using a straw man fallacy in conjunction with the false equivalence fallacy.
His very first post, and two known logical fallacies used. Had he been honest about what he meant, then this argument would have been exposed immediately as irrational, but note the first question I asked, and his response here:
So when I ask @Sid directly for clarification, instead of honestly addressing his irrational false equivalence, he evades it with dishonest obfuscation. Note also that he also shifts the burden of proof to his claim immediately, and yes it was a claim as no one has claimed what he is calling the biggest lie.
Just a few posts later he skirts close to another obvious argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy:
Note the addition of word life, he is shifting the goal posts already to his final false equivalence, and he has already asserted that it is “the biggest lie” that the universe has no meaning, now he is implying the notion is unfalsifiable. So though this is still a false equivalence to where he eventually leads, which is just that human beings (have evolved) to attach subjective meaning to their lives, it is also a straw man since no one disputed that as yet hidden claim, he is now implying that not knowing the universe can’t have meaning validates his claim the universe has meaning, which of course would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I don’t think he’s posted more then 10 times and that is three known logical fallacies. The arguments by the way are as relentlessly dishonest at this point as they are irrational, evasion, equivocation, misdirection, ignoring question that sought clarity on his position, responding with vague appeals to mystery as questions, asked of straw man claims no one has made, etc etc…
More to come on this, as some posters will understand and see the inference for claims and beliefs that are based on such relentlessly irrational and dishonest arguments.
1 Like
So here again I clarify, as have other posters, the logically significant difference between disbelieving a claim, and making a contrary claim. Here we see another use of his earlier false equivalence fallacy, where @Sid shifts the goal posts closer to a different claim, from his original claim that it is “the biggest lie” that the universe has no meaning, to people seeking subjective purpose or meaning in their lives.:
Please note, I also offered some objective evidence against his shifting position, that human life has some overarching meaning, you will observe that @Sid offers no acknowledgment of this, simply ignores it and repeats his original false equivalence. Though now he has shifted almost completely from his original claim; that “it is the biggest lie the universe has no meaning”, (note this differs from my continuing assertion that I don’t believe the universe has meaning, not that it doesn’t contain meaning, which is where he is heading, by shifting the argument), to “we know” that (subjective) meaning is sought and exists in people’s lives. Who ever denied this?
So since no one has denied this it is another straw man fallacy, and of course the now complete transition from @Sid’s original claim, demonstrates the original false equivalence he was making. I shan’t labour this point anymore, but several posters myself included, explained the significant difference between the universe having meaning, and the universe containing a species that subjectively adds meaning to their own lives. Anyone who read beyond this point will witness the handwaving that has been a common tactic of @Sid’s posts.
Here @Sid is asked again for clarification from a poster, since as explained above he’s gone from the universe “having meaning” to humans seeking or creating their own subjective meaning for their lives. Note this would include religious beliefs, since they are entirely subjective, as @Sid has tacitly accepted himself of course by rejecting even the idea that his superstitious beliefs in the supernatural need or could have any objective evidence to support them.
Note the false equivalence is now complete, and we arrive at the straw man fallacy that replaces his original claim, since no one has denied that humans attach a subjective meaning to their own lives. Note also he twisting this to “life asking you what is the meaning” and again nothing in the way of evidence or rational argument to support this supposition he makes. It could as easily be claimed to be an emergent property of the evolved human brain, who would deny that life is more bearable with some subjective purpose than with none, a survival benefit if ever there as one, quod erat demonstrandum.
That was response, even in retrospect of the shifting goal posts it seems unequivocal.
One of the many times I repost evidence that @Sid has asked for, and then goes on to entirely ignore. Worth noting here, since @Sid uses this throughout, he is using what is called an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy also known as an appeal to stone fallacy.
"Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence."
This of course has been true of almost all, if not all, of @Sid’s posts and responses to objective evidence. Handwaving is the usual response, note he dismissed @Calilasseia’s peer reviewed evidence demonstrating emotional attachments in other species with precisely this fallacy, I urge anyone interested in understanding the fallacy to go look at the response.
Here is ample evidence that @Sid thinks calling a claim a lie is not in fact a contrary claim it is true, as absurd as the notion seems, that is his position here:
Note also a reiteration of the original false equivalence, and the none too subtle dropping of the word universe to just the word life, which as we have seen he shifted to from his original claim, it is quoted at the start of the previous post for anyone to see. Again if he meant what he finally went on to claim, that humans attach a subjective meaning to their lives, then the why was the word universe in there, and why not simply just say that, and avoid the merry-go-round of shifting goal posts from his original claim, indeed why not have the integrity to acknowledge he alone was culpable for using this fallacy?
1 Like
In short, he’s peddling repeatedly destroyed canards, and continuing to do so even when they’ve been destroyed again here.
He obviously thinks that if he repeats this shit often enough, it will magically become fact.
Except that’s not how reality operates.
This thread is possibly a masterclass in the vacuity and duplicity of mythology fanboy apologetics. Though it’s not surprising that people brought up on apologetics think that this conduct is legitimate, because the purpose of apologetics isn’t to determine the truth value of propositions, but to generate ex recto fabrications in a vain attempt to make reality conform to an equally fabricated doctrine. It’s the fine art of making shit up, in order to pretend that previously made up shit constitutes fact.
The idea of paying attention to what reality is telling us, is completely alien to those who think they can use apologetics to produce magic spells to conjure their cartoon magic men intn existence. Instead of judging propositions about the world in the basis of their accord with observational data, these people define “truth” as “that which conforms to doctrine”.
I’m reminded here of a famous “wait, he said what?” moment that’s been immortalised graphically, viz:
There’s an entire industry devoted to selling this garbage, and in some parts of the world, that industry is malign and venomous to an extent warranting its treatment as an existential threat to the planet. Yet mythology fanboys think that this sort of warped perversion of the process of genuine thought, constitutes some sort of “virtue”.
Yet again, I make no apologies for regarding religion as a disease, and its pedlars as ideological Typhoid Marys.
5 Likes
While that occurred to me, I think a more probable scenario is he is looking to “separate the weak, the old and the sick from the herd”. I premise that he is deluding himself that the less directly confrontational responses indicate the people posting them are more suggestible to his unevidenced superstition. Which is why he is limiting his responses to them, which ironically (even though he’s mistaken about them) is about as close to sound reasoning as he’s shown. I imagine he also wrongly thinks his inability to sway the direct refutations of his unevidenced subjective anecdote and irrational argument, somehow donates a closed mind, it’s astonishing how many suggestible people who base beliefs on an uncritical and un-sceptical acceptance of unevidenced and poorly reasoned arguments, think open minded means lowering the bar for credulity to the point where one accepts unevidenced claims without challenging them. Whereas to those who understand it, open minded simply means treating all ideas without prejudice for or against.
2 Likes