From my opening post, so no excuse for TheLyingPig to keep misrepresenting atheism.
Also from my opening post, and the significance shouldn’t need hammering home, given TheLyingPig’s duplicity on this score.
…and the hits just keep on coming.
1 Like
IF you annoy him, he WILL go away.
Ok, I’m game , hit me with some Truth . As regards your question , Yes , that’s we all should be seeking truth in my humble opinion.
Q - Are we dealing in absolutes here or is everything relative . It would be handy to know the playing field we are on . Fire away
Once there was no life. Then there was.
Creation or abiogenesis or something else? Take your pick. No-one is forced, or should be forced, to decide.
None, as yet, are strictly proven.
However, abiogenesis is the most rational explanation for the emergence of life. The complexity of chemical reactions within and between naturally occurring organic compounds is mirrored by the sheer range and diversity in the biochemistry of existing lifeforms. The profound scope and variety of vestigial organs throughout the species does more to suggest independent variability than predetermined design. The incomprehensible number of extinct species in the fossil history does little to commend the idea of a competent much less omnipresent creator/designer. The seemingly impossible operation of human haemoglobin is dwarfed by the even more incredible history of its accretional development and diversification, throughout nearly all the species; vertebrates, invertebrates and even plants and fungi, which can be tracked by comparative chemical analysis that reveals a spread and adaption rather than a one off creation.
The biochemistry of abiogenesis is a well established branch of science. Much has been revealed since the Miller-Urey experiments of the early 1950’s. It is a part of NASA’s on going investigations in extra planetary research. It is worth the google.
But of course there remains the hypothesis that ‘God’ created the universe. It’s regarded as a tentatively viable alternative as long as the need for actual physical evidence is not considered important, which relegates it to being a belief or a matter of faith, which is not of itself a bad thing. If believing in things were not a useful tool for humankind it might have ceased to be a continuing practice long ago.
Faith for a long time, and now in some circumstances remains a place holder for science. The ancient and specific practice of deriving copper from surface ores could only be done if ages old ‘hit and miss’, tried and true processes, ‘rituals’, if you will, were faithfully and strictly adhered to. Non-compliance might have well been wasteful, unproductive, and in an age of uncertain resources (as early as 9000 BC ) even considered sacrilegious, maybe heretical. What was actually the unidentified realities and the genesis of, chemistry, were perceived to be the outcomes of powerful magic, the domain of gods. But in reality it was just basic physical laws of chemistry.
Faith serves its purpose for most humans providing some sort of comforting explanation for things not understood which might yet be controlled through a process of deliberate action or thought, no matter how unrelated.
Poor use of philosophy to argue the existence of the supernatural is definitely a relic of the ‘stone age’.
1 Like
Fair enough.
The one and only absolute I hold is that the cosmos (everything that is) exists. We may be brains in a jar, we may be a computer program, we may be the products of a god, we may be as we perceive, and we may be something we have not imagined yet. But because we are interacting, something is going on, thus this cosmos exists.
That is the one and only absolute I will agree on, everything must be evidenced and verified.
So everything else we deal with and discuss, I do not consider absolutes, but accepted based on evidence, confirmation by our senses, and confirmed by others.
1 Like
That’s a lie I’m afraid, no one whose claims are almost exclusive based on irrational logical fallacies, even after they’ve been explained, along with the consequences, is seeking the truth. You’ve already decided your god claim is true, and you’re completely closed minded to the idea it might be false.
Only you are dealing in absolutes, and why should anyone answer your questions, when you ignore so many of ours? You keep blindly asserting your supernatural god claim is the most probable cause of the universe, yet can’t demonstrate it is even possible. Unlike natural phenomena of course, which we know for an objective fact are possible.
2 Likes
Information. Demonstrable. Reality. Getting as close to what is true as humanly possible.
2 Likes
FYI
- Nothing containing a known logical fallacy can be asserted as logical.
- Asserting something is or even might be true, because there is no evidence to disprove it is a known logical fallacy. NB you have done this throughout this discourse, and continue to do it, whilst lying that your position is logical.
- Natural phenomena are known to be possible as an objective fact. You can’t demonstrate that supernatural causes or a deity are even possible.
- You keep ignoring all of the above, yet keep lying you seek the truth.
- You keep claiming a deity as first cause is more probable than unexplained natural phenomena, despite not being able to show a deity is even possible, and whilst knowing natural phenomena are possible. Yet refuse to address this honestly, resorting to endless use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Theres enough truths there to be going on with…
2 Likes
How is consciousness coming from inanimate lifeless material rational ? What is the basis that reasoning ?
Who in the fuck told you that consciousness came from inanimate lifeless material?
The building blocks of life. amino acids, came from inanimate lifeless material. How and when consciousness was formed, came about, emerged, is unknown to most intelligent beings. That is why we have excluded you from the group.
2 Likes
Oh, hmmmmm 
at what point is “wetness” a quality of H20?
2 Likes
Whitefire13Atheist
I love it when you talk dirty!!!
2 Likes
Following the rational that life began with inanimate lifeless matter then proceeded with complexity then at some point consciousness emerges .
Lifeless inanimate matter is the starting point for consciousness to appear .
Where is my reasoning off ?
You are definitely implying that inanimate matter became intelligent life in a direct fashion. Billions of years and millions of changes were required to reach our present state. It is duplicitous to pretend otherwise.
I see what you are trying to do. If you can establish that inanimate matter suddenly turned into intelligent life, then you could state that your god did the same. You are constantly seeking a “gotcha” moment.
I was a fool to give you a second chance, you are once again off on your trolling nonsense.
Did you watch the video concerning Hawking’s lecture? Can you describe in your own words the difference between Newton’s description of the universe, and Einstein’s?
Listen dude, I am actually trying to help you. Because if I educate you, or at least point you towards learning, then all of us can engage in a healthy exchange of positions and ideas instead of this nonsensical trolling and wasting time.
3 Likes
Can you demonstrate evidence that any other processes than natural phenomena exist? It is irrational to add unevidenced assumptions to try and explain processes we don’t understand, as Occam’s razor shows.
We know natural processes exist, we know life exists, we can demonstrate objective evidence that the human brain evolved, and that consciousness is not just a product of the human brain, but that damaging the human brain diminishes or ends that consciousness.
Paradoxically how does consciousness evidence any deity or anything supernatural? All you are offering is the same appeal to ignorance fallacy.
1 Like
Rationale, not rational.
Life emerged, we don’t know how, we do know natural processes are possible, so it is irrational to add unevidenced magic we don’t know is possible, consciousness evolved as a byproduct of the human brain. No magic or unevidenced sky fairies needed.
Edited for clarity
2 Likes
Ever hear of chemical reactions?
God almighty - get your ass off of “answers in genesis”
AND start googling scientific explanations from scientists 
YOU realize you are arguing from a POV that our “complex life and consciousness” couldn’t arise from simpler forms (demonstrable evidence supports) YET you cling to the idea that “some invisible entity with consciousness existing outside time/space so complex it’s beyond human understanding ‘just’ exists WITHOUT an even more complex creator” ABSOLUTELY NO DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE
…
??? WTF ???
You use the lowest of the lowest form of reasoning …your imagination - AND even then it’s limited.
1 Like
His spiel is pretty vexatious isn’t it. How much is deliberate I’m not sure, but I’m still fairly certain he’s trolling.
1 Like
Consciousness is not required for chemical reactions to occur.
They do not need an audience to happen.
Abiogenesis, incomplete science that it is, is far more likely to be the cause of life in this universe than an unevidenced claim for an incorporeal creator god no matter how conscious.
We know life started and continued on this planet. It was once the accepted view that the immense number of primitive planetary systems throughout the vast universe, each with its peculiar chemical and physical environment processing innumerable actions and reactions would have to result in a probabilistic certainty, that at least one system would create conditions for the emergence of a self-replicating molecular biological system. Interestingly, the earliest undisputed evidence shows life began on earth just one billion years after its accreted formation as part of the solar system, which only suggests that abiogenesis may not be as difficult to arise as even science once thought.
Despite the fact that processes explaining the development of polymers and self-replicating chemical and biological mechanisms are as yet not fully understood, and that the odds of this happening are enormous, we know it happened at least once. We are evidence of that.
To insist on the involvement of a creator god involves even more inexplicable improbabilities, unnecessary and impossible to examine or explain rationally with an unfalsifiable, disembodied consciousness being the most problematic.
Lifeless inanimate matter is not the starting point for consciousness. Its like saying oil is the reason street directories were created. Consciousness is a later product of evolutionary processes that followed on from the abiogenetic origins of life. And if you weren’t aware, street directories were published for the benefit of lost motorists.
To believe that nothing happens, or can ever happen, without some sort of conscious agency or witness, is closer to a ‘stone age’ superstition than any rational scientific view of reality.
1 Like
Does absolute truth exist?
One definition of truth is: “that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.” This is how I will use it.
For triangles, A^2 + B^2 = C^2, it is provable using mathematics and has never been proven false. This is a model of reality that mankind came up with that is, to the best of our knowledge, true. While it is true for triangles, that does mean that it can be applied to any other geometric shapes and have it still be true. Reality exists, and exists in a certain way regardless of how we model it. We just want to model it as accurately as possible. This brings us to a key question:
Is the way somebody goes about finding truth important?