How did the light switch get turned on? How did life come from inanimate objects in mud?

Maybe the question has been answered and proven and I'm not aware of it. If it has, please inform me. If it hasn't, what are some of the leading theories and what are your thoughts regarding those theories?

42

How many roads must a man walk down?

Before you call him a man?

Where did the mud come from? An explosion in the middle of absolute nothingness?

Well you see there where these branes......

Yeah that little unanswered (to my knowledge) question has been bugging me as well. Where did the exploding dot come from? How did it get there? How did it know when to explode? How were the laws of physics that caused it to explode created?

Do atheists just have faith that there is a factual explanation out there somewhere, yet to be found, that they're absolutely positive is devoid of any divine guidance?

I just want logical answers.

The religious and the the atheist both rely on Blind Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground.

The best logical explanation currently is the collsion of two branes.

I don't know how they got there,

but I do know they were named Adam and EVE

Not Adam and STEVE

atheists believe god is improbable for the same reason you believe unicorns are improbable. no faith involved.

maybe the "mud" was always there. if you think it's possible that god can be eternal there's no reason to think matter/energy couldn't be.
no double standards allowed

no, they believe the pattern of evidence indicates it's most likely that a god-free explanation
will be found for the origin of the big bang. faith has nothing to do with it.



unlike religious fundamentalists, the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists
don't pretend to be absolutely positive about anything. most atheists form their view of
reality based on evidence-based probability. the only time you really hear anyone
talk about hard atheism (absolute belief there is no god) is when theists are making
lame attempts to validate their own belief with straw man arguments, as in this thread.

nobody knows for sure, and the only people who pretend to know are religious fundamentalists.




it's not hard to research what science is learning about this stuff online yourself. just google abiogenesis or "origin of life".

here's a good place to start

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

The light didn't get switched on. There's no discrete jump between "life" and "non life." A human is alive. It can think, breath, cry, read, listen to music, etc. A chimp is alive. It can think, breath, cry, and listen to music, but it can't read. An ant is alive, but really all it can do is make several simple choices involving scents, moving around, and eating. A cellular organism is sort of alive. It can't think and doesn't know it exists. All it can do is absorb things through its cell walls, eat them, and create more of itself. It doesn't know it's doing that. Even though it's just one cell, it's still extremely complicated and has many, many moving parts. It has DNA, RNA, ribosomes, mitochondria etc.

Really, you can zoom in and say that a particular ribosome is "alive." Processes amino acids into long protein strands, polypeptide chains, and RNA. It's just a smaller version of the one-cell organism. But now we're getting down to a fuzzy border. A ribosome is little more than a group of chemicals and proteins that work almost mechanically to do their job. So, is it alive, or is it a component? Is the engine in my car alive? Is a one cellular organism alive? Is a skin cell in my body alive? Is one neuron in my brain alive? It just takes chemical input, converts it into electrical signals, and then sends chemical output to other neurons.

If no cell in my body is "alive," then how do they make up something that is alive? If I lose 50% of the cells in my body, am I still alive, or am I less alive? Am I less alive if I lose a leg or an arm? If I can't digest food and need machines to do it for me, am I alive? If I have an artificial heart? If I become brain damaged and am afflicted with mental retardation, am I less alive? What if I'm a vegtable? What if every cell in my body dies except for one neuron, which becomes supported artificially in a lab. Is that neuron me? Am I that neuron? How many do I need for it to be me?

What if I write a computer program and design a machine that takes in protein and gives out waste? Is it alive? What if I build a tiny robot that does everything that an ant can do? Have I created life? It can't think, but neither can an ant. Where's the dividing line?

Okay, all these questions are getting annoying and obvious.

My point is this: pretty much every conflict between religion and science boils down to a conflicting view on whether life is a discrete or continuous thing. Is it yes/no, or is it a gradual increase in intelligence and functionality.

nah, that's too confusing. lets just say that god did it.

Everyone knows that this 'point' of yours is ridiculous. If there wasn't a beginning then scientists wouldn't be actively trying to figure out what it was. Also, you would need to get rid of the pesky red shift theory.




haha



Nice tangent. (since you're really the only one that bothered to answer the OP directly.) You make an interesting point though.



You didn't even read his post... did you!

nope. jesus wouldn't, so I didn't.

Very crudely described the basic theory (or theories more accurately) of abiogenesis is that organic molecules (arrangements of atoms) formed out of what was here on earth due to natural forces and a whole lot of time. Eventually there were molecules with resemblances to RNA which replicated themselves, and once this replication process happens you have the whole principle that things which replicate themselves more successfully become more abundant, and things become more and more complex over time. The wikipedia page is pretty good.

To drive home LLY's point, the things that living things are made of were here before there were living things; they are just arranged in different ways. The core of every atom in every molecule in every living cell is the same stuff that makes up rocks and rivers. We are made of the earth.

This is an issue worth clearing up.

People use the word "faith" in a lot of different contexts colloquially. But in the religious context, it describes a belief which does not hold itself to the standards of evidence. In other words, a faithful believer typically does not arrive at his belief through reason or evidence, and needs no logical or reasonable evidence for holding the belief. The corollary to this is that evidence which does not support the belief may be ignored -- since the belief has nothing to do with evidence. Framed this way you can see that faithful belief is precisely the opposite of the scientific approach to understanding the world.

The scientific point of view does not have to choose between not knowing something, and having faith. This is a false choice. It is perfectly reasonable to not know, and in fact the whole venture of science would make no sense if it weren't based on the understanding that there is so much we do not know. There is a lot we do not know about the origins of life. However, it is reasonable to think that we may learn more about the origins of life by studying it, by gathering evidence and applying our faculties of reason. There is no faith involved in this process, nor is there any absolute certainty.

"Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

Your definition is insufficient.

(Not that I think that dictionaries are the authority on the definitions of words, but just to make the point, your definition is the first one on dictionary.com, but look at the 2nd:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.


)

It is this 2nd sense of the word where we really diverge, and is the kind of "faith" encouraged by religious practice. The difference between us on faith in the first sense is more subtle -- we have limited "trust" in our correctness as scientists; cultivating doubt and uncertainty is an important part of the process.

_

"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion…"

I erred in saying Blind actually. I should have said, "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground.

The Branes statement should have revealed my leaning."

next stop Uncertainty principle and observer effect.

I don't think science and "religious" faith differ as much here as you might think.

who's everyone? you and BG?



they're not. no scientist studying the big bang is trying to figure out how something came from nothing.

as is that definition is superficial and obvious. if you don't add "without sufficient evidence" it doesn't define faith in any religious sense.

you still err

what does that even mean? they're definitionally polar opposites.

"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion…"
That is the definition.

What is this sufficient evidence you speak of? Please define Sufficient Evidence.

A wise man believes in things like The Status Quo, validity, acceptance, and rejection...... an truth that, "has a variety of meanings, from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.".

It is easier to prove the the easter bunny than to prove truth.

in fact the easter bunny is very understandable. if you know its history.

opinion.

I am very sure many of you are aware of this but for those that are not. I hope you enjoy;

Allegory of the Cave
By Socrates
Written by Plato

Republic: Book VII

"And now," I said, "let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened. Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets."

"I see."

"And do you see," I said, "men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking others silent."

"You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners."

"Like ourselves," I replied; "and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?"

"True," he said; "how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?"

"And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?"

"Yes," he said.

"And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?"

"Very true."

"And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadows?"

"No question," he replied.

"To them," I said, "the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images."

"That is certain."

"And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision - what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, - will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?"

"Far truer."

"And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer that the things which are now being shown to him?"

"True," he said.

"And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities."

"Not all in a moment," he said.

"He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and others objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?"

"Certainly."

"Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is."

"Certainly."

"He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and is a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?"

"Clearly," he said, "he would first see the sun and then reason about him."

"And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?"

"Certainly, he would."

"And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, 'Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,' and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?"

"Yes," he said, "I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner."

"Imagine once more," I said, "such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?"

"To be sure," he said.

"And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death."

"No question," he said.

"This entire allegory," I said, "you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed - whether rightly of wrongly, God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed."

"I agree," he said, "as far as I am able to understand you."

"Moreover," I said, "you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are never hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted."

"Yes, very natural."

"And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?"

"Anything but surprising," he replied.

Awesomely Excellent!

not in any religious sense.



sufficient evidence = accepted as probable by science. by the working definition used by the religious, faith is independant from science-like evidence.



science has nothing to do with searching for truth in the sense of philosophical absolutes. you're trying to force a parallel between science and religious faith that isn't there.
you were right the first time when you used the qualifier blind.

You forgot a bunch of people.





You're wrong.

"the ultimate origin of the universe remains a topic of on-going theoretical research" - talkorigins.com (YOUR FAVORITE UNBIASED SITE!!)

Whoa, whoa. Let's not start throwing around recognition of people as people. You can't take that kind of stuff back.

I think he was saying that those studying "origin of the universe" material aren't sitting around trying to figure out how something came from nothing.

Is that even a credited abiogenesis theory?



Or I guess if I read this correctly, he said that no one studying the big bang is trying to figure out how something came from nothing. They're actually studying everything from the known starting point on and not before that. Just like those who study evolution aren't studying the starting the point of evolving life. They're studying the process as it has happened.

that's another way of saying scientists are researching the big bang. that doesn't mean they're assuming there was nothing there "before" (if that concept even applies).
they're absolutely not. they're trying to find whatever matter/energy/potential background was already in place that the big bang might have emerged from.

anyway the original point i was making really had little to do with scientific research.

if you think it's possible that god can be eternal then whatever reasoning you use to reach that conclusion can
be applied equally to the universe/multiverse itself. if god can be infinite and unlimited in scope beyond
our ability to comprehend with simple human thought, then there's no reason an undesigned mechanical
universe couldn't be also.

i'm not aware of anyone who thinks that's a ridiculous point, other than religious fundamentalists who are
too stuck on their own egocentric assumptions to comprehend it.

Dude. Are you retarded? That is the definition. Religious sense? Perhaps if they wanted to exclude religion from the definition of proof they would have added that exclusion n the definition. you sure like to rephrase and redefine things. You are reminding me of a spastic child here.

So you are using Scientific Truth. I would love to see you use Scientific Method to prove atheism? Go ahead I will wait.

Did you know; Alhazen the person who introduced Scientific Method was a practicing Muslim. In fact, "His theories regarding knowledge and perception, linking the domains of science and religion, led to a philosophy of existence based on the direct observation of reality from the observer's point of view." hmmmm?????

Gallieo, Bacon And even the Big Cogito himself Descartes all believed in God......hmmm hmmmm

SO please quit arbitrarily assembling sentences to justify your faithful belief that there is no God.

Or you could put that baseball in the hoop and use Scientific method in your next post to a disprove god. Dude, Do it! I bet you will win a Nobel Prize if you cans.

So in conclusion; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."

He was commenting on your definition of faith. I agree with him that the definition you copied and pasted is not a sufficient definition of faith (see my post on this earlier).

But please, personal insults are not going to help your argument. It's really important that we don't go there. If we degrade these threads to that, there will be no point in discussing anything. You have to give the benefit of the doubt that the other posters are arguing in good faith. ( Well, except Loismustdie, he's just angry. )

Some of the people who I disagree with most on this forum are the same people I respect most. That makes for good discussion. You're not gaining much respect with this kind of thing.

I like crowtobot. Crow is Awesome!

DO you want to add this: "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."???

I am ok with that. Lets Get that Logical proof and material evidence that god does not exist out. The noble prize is awaiting......Sarcasm for fun


and.........no one respect avs, anyways.

yeah, I reread that and it was kind of mean...but interject/put forth a broader definition from a credible source not quips or assertions that meet your agenda.....

So I apologize Crow. *Hugs.

and more *Hugs.

Honestly I feel bad.

Ok to get back on track;

The status quo here is; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."

The definition of Faith is, "Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea." & "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

So all we need to do is prove or disprove the existence of God Using Scientific Method.

My mind is blown, I'm going home to take a nap until I forget I read that.

"God" and "the scientific method" are mutually exclusive. Faith in something that can't be seen, felt, touched, or experimented on isn't in the same ballpark as using measurable data to formulate theories. You can experiment on reverse engineering how the universe could have been created and you can experiment on actual materials in the universe to try and decipher how it got there, but it's not like every failed experiment ends with "chalk on up for the god theory!"

If people want to believe 100% in god, intelligent design, etc., that's fine. There will ALWAYS be holes in our knowledge of the universe and life itself that will allow for religious people to point to god as an explanation, and that's fine too. But comparing that kind of faith to the version of faith that you're trying to apply to science is insulting to both sides. As much as brvheart might argue that someone like me can be no more sure about my beliefs than he can be about his, I can't imagine he'd argue that our methods of decision making for these big questions are very similar.

Also, you don't need to prove a negative, this means we also need to disprove the theory that the universe was created by the fart of a 4th dimension intergalactic ManBearPig, etc. Atheism (no, I'm not an atheist) isn't faith in the non-existence of god any more than it's the faith in the non-existence of the MBP fart.