christopher hitchens

[buckshot24]

Oh, I see.

You said this:


Then you explained the evolved bag of chemicals having no intrinsic value.

So, if origins matter and this mentioned origin has no value... you are implying there is an origin that does imbue value.

Do you still not see it?

I see where you are coming from now. But the implication is still irrelevant to my statement that we have no intrinsic value under your origins scenario. If you're right then you're right and what else could be right is beside the point.

And this tells you that two members of your audience caught the same implication.

Either clarify or revise, or otherwise explain yourself better.

Thank you.

It does nothing of the sort. He's a sheep and echoed what you wrote. He's on ignore for a reason.

 

[soulcougher73]

It does nothing of the sort. He's a sheep and echoed what you wrote. He's on ignore for a reason.

Because he's too smart for you as are the rest of us.

 

[Retro Rob]

You have a nice day.

LOL, you can't say I'm wrong, then ask me to "see anything related to solar eclipses, volcanos erupting, etc".

What's wrong with you?

 

[Retro Rob]

So how did he manipulate this matter that he magically created to make life.

I don't know, therefore "magic", right?

 

[WelshBloke]

I don't know, therefore "magic", right?

You tell me, it's your idea.

You must have some idea how it works?

 

[jackstar7]

I see where you are coming from now. But the implication is still irrelevant to my statement that we have no intrinsic value under your origins scenario. If you're right then you're right and what else could be right is beside the point.

I'm telling you that the implication is not irrelevant. It entered the discourse and I'd like you to address it.

Please explain an origin that imbues inherent value in human life.

If you do not believe there is one, then that contradicts your earlier point that origins are important.

 

[Retro Rob]

If god put a car together using a welding torch, a wrench, etc, of course that wouldn't be magical. That's not the case here though. Christian theology holds that god created the universe (and therefore life) out of nothing. That violates the laws of thermodynamics, so it is impossible for him to have created life by anything other than supernatural/magical forces in a way that is consistent with Christian theology as I understand it.

It hold the Universe was created "out of nothing", but not terrestrial life.

Well if we're arguing that he is overall magical but wasn't being magical here, that seems like a very fine distinction. One I also happen to think is wrong as I noted above, but what would be the purpose of the distinction anyway?

The purpose of that distinction is to obtain an accurate understanding of what the narrative says about the creation of the physical universe itself, and biological life.

If "magic" is creating something from nothing, then creating something from something cannot be "magic".

 

[WelshBloke]

And the people who wrote the bible didn't attribute natural phenomenon to God or "magic" (please correct me if I am wrong). They attributed unnatural things to God, like resurrections, angels, and so on.

Like plagues of locusts or outbreaks of diseases?

 

[WelshBloke]

If "magic" is creating something from nothing, then creating something from something cannot be "magic".

Even if you magically make the something first?

 

[Retro Rob]

Like plagues of locusts or outbreaks of diseases?

If you're talking about the Exodus, the Locusts and disease only affected the Egyptians and not Israel -- that's why it was something attributed to God.

A natural occurrence would have been much more indiscriminate.

Additionally, it happened right when Moses commanded, and ceased when he commanded. It was really God's hand, according to the account.

 

[fskimospy]

It hold the Universe was created "out of nothing", but not terrestrial life.

The purpose of that distinction is to obtain an accurate understanding of what the narrative says about the creation of the physical universe itself, and biological life.

Again, I'm simply not seeing the meaningful distinction between saying he magically created life and saying he magically created the universe but then sat down and made life according to the physical laws that he had also just recently magicked into existence.

If "magic" is creating something from nothing, then creating something from something cannot be "magic".

Of course it can be. Violating the laws of thermodynamics is just one way to be 'magical'. There are virtually limitless other ways.

 

[soulcougher73]

It hold the Universe was created "out of nothing", but not terrestrial life.



The purpose of that distinction is to obtain an accurate understanding of what the narrative says about the creation of the physical universe itself, and biological life.

If "magic" is creating something from nothing, then creating something from something cannot be "magic".

Oh come on Rob. You have to see this as a dumb line of reasoning? The stuff he created was magic, but the stuff he made from the magic stuff isn't magic?

Either way..he "poofed" stuff into existence which we humans can define as magic.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm telling you that the implication is not irrelevant. It entered the discourse and I'd like you to address it. So what? How is it relevant?

Please explain an origin that imbues inherent value in human life.

If you do not believe there is one, then that contradicts your earlier point that origins are important.

No and it isn't relevant to the point I made later. We're just bags of chemicals under your scenario and therefore have zero intrinsic value.

 

[jackstar7]

No and it isn't relevant to the point I made later. We're just bags of chemicals under your scenario and therefore have zero intrinsic value.

So you're not interested in having a discussion. Got it.

My mistake.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually I already did answer it earlier, you just didn't like that you were proven wrong in that post so you did the classic 8 year old argument tactic of ignoring it.

This reaffirms my conviction that people imagine that if they have opinions, they are ipso facto rational. - Moonbeam

Reason: coming to an answer that is based on facts, not opinions or beliefs. - The dictionary

You called your conviction on what "rational" means is peoples OPINION, You were wrong, the dictionary is right. So on top of that you have an irrational conviction because you didn't base it on facts.

Triple answered, and proven that you are writing your own definition of words.

Thank you for your clarification explaining how you saw your explanation. I didn't see it that way. I know that what you think are facts you call facts, but as I pointed out in your climate change example, people draw different conclusions from the same facts. The same data does not produce the same conclusions or opinions. So one person reasoning from the same facts as another reasoning from them does not always lead to the same place which, I think night be because one of the two isn't reasoning properly. How do we tell who is who?

 

[buckshot24]

Atheists, how many more observed failures in the lab must you see to conclude that an unguided natural origin of life is false? How is the idea that unguided chemistry created living things falsifiable?

 

[soulcougher73]

nm

 

[jackstar7]

Atheists, how many more observed failures in the lab must you see to conclude that an unguided natural origin of life is false? How is the idea that unguided chemistry created living things falsifiable?

You have demonstrated that you don't want a discussion. So what is the incentive to answer your questions?

 

[buckshot24]

You have demonstrated that you don't want a discussion. So what is the incentive to answer your questions?

No I didn't. I demonstrated I didn't want a discussion about something I found to be irrelevant.

 

[jackstar7]

No I didn't. I demonstrated I didn't want a discussion about something I found to be irrelevant.

Right, regardless of the other participants interest. So... you know... you can have the discussion by yourself, but there's no incentive for anyone to participate with you if you are going to so earnestly dictate the selected boundaries of the discourse and not actually engage with others.

It's disingenuous. Or, more plainly, you are.

 

[buckshot24]

Right, regardless of the other participants interest. So... you know... you can have the discussion by yourself, but there's no incentive for anyone to participate with you if you are going to so earnestly dictate the selected boundaries of the discourse and not actually engage with others.

It's disingenuous. Or, more plainly, you are.

So let me get this straight. I'm disingenuous because I don't want to talk about a certain topic but you're not because that certain topic is all you want to talk about? Seems you're doing the same thing I am.

Lets try this. Go ahead and ask your question and I'll answer. You'll need to answer my last question in turn.

 

[fskimospy]

Atheists, how many more observed failures in the lab must you see to conclude that an unguided natural origin of life is false? How is the idea that unguided chemistry created living things falsifiable?

False premise as there are huge numbers of ways in which the origin of life could have come from an unguided process. Experimental failures show that it was (likely) not from whatever specific way was done in the lab in that particular experiment. So saying 'life formed from an unguided process' is indeed not falsifiable because it's not specific enough to rule out with certainty. There are just too many possibilities. That's of course why no one would say that their scientific hypothesis for how life came to be was 'some unguided process'.

Your problem here is that you view this as a conflict between a guided process and an unguided process but science doesn't see it that way. Science sees it as a problem where we try and figure out which way it did in fact happen. It doesn't care about guided or unguided. You're projecting your own needs here.

What's nice about the theories of unguided processes though is that they ARE individually falsifiable. Your theory of a guided process is entirely unscientific and cannot ever be tested. You have no problem with this so long as it supports your desired outcome. No matter how many hundreds, thousands, or millions of hypotheses are found to be wrong in the lab, you are not one iota closer to providing evidence that it must be a directed process.

 

[soulcougher73]

Atheists, how many more observed failures in the lab must you see to conclude that an unguided natural origin of life is false? How is the idea that unguided chemistry created living things falsifiable?

Can you prove your guided process for life that you believe in? And whats written in a book isnt proof btw. Just in case you were going to go there.

 

[jackstar7]

So let me get this straight. I'm disingenuous because I don't want to talk about a certain topic but you're not because that certain topic is all you want to talk about? Seems you're doing the same thing I am.

Lets try this. Go ahead and ask your question and I'll answer. You'll need to answer my last question in turn.

Your very question is disingenuous.

"How many times will you have to beat your wife in a lab before you finally stop?"


I'll answer your question though as best as I can: until we run out of ideas to test.

Will you answer my actual question that I asked previously? That would be nice.

 

[buckshot24]

Your very question is disingenuous.

"How many times will you have to beat your wife in a lab before you finally stop?"


I'll answer your question though as best as I can: until we run out of ideas to test.

Answer the second one then. How is the idea itself falsifiable?