Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
78. I'll assume "an intelegent being" is a typo.
Fri Sep 30, 2016, 08:49 PM
Sep 2016

Contemplating an extranatural or supernatural existence prior to the existence of a natural universe is hardly invoking a god to full a gap.

Nor do I think "a big unsolvable mystery" is an acceptable answer to an obvious question.

A silly post ArtD48 Sep 2016 #1
That's kind of his point. rug Sep 2016 #2
"Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah" - Nope LongtimeAZDem Sep 2016 #3
"Yet" is what makes it messianic. rug Sep 2016 #5
"Yet" means "not so far"; there is no other implication, despite your desperate longing for one (nt) LongtimeAZDem Sep 2016 #11
Oh, good. So, do you expect that answer to be forthcoming? rug Sep 2016 #17
Probably not in my lifetime, which doesn't bother me at all LongtimeAZDem Sep 2016 #20
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition". rug Sep 2016 #24
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition". AlbertCat Oct 2016 #165
"Scientists have been doing that from the beginning." rug Oct 2016 #167
And here you are, blithely pretending that's not an offensive AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #79
Who are you talking to? rug Oct 2016 #94
The quote starts with a run-on sentence. Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #91
Your second "sentence" lacks a verb. rug Oct 2016 #93
Blogs and everyday speech usually allow sentence fragments. Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #97
Hardly. Show an implication of biology (which is not a proper noun) that rebuts him. rug Oct 2016 #99
"Hardly" is a sentence fragment. Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #103
You haven't posted even a fragment on what implication biology has to this article. rug Oct 2016 #104
See # 8, # 19, # 30 Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #106
That's wise since you have nothing to offer on the subject. rug Oct 2016 #107
You posted someone else's work.... Brettongarcia Oct 2016 #110
See #148. The chemistry professor was quoted out of sequence, with vital phrases and pages missing muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #150
Everything is supernatural. Trouble is, it's too banal-seeming Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #159
Okay ... and who created God? hmm. YOHABLO Sep 2016 #4
That's an excellent question and here is the answer. rug Sep 2016 #6
Empty assertions. It's purely speculative to assert existence has a cause. immoderate Sep 2016 #13
The flip side is what is speculative and unfounded. rug Sep 2016 #14
What is known, doesn't tell us what is unknown. immoderate Sep 2016 #22
It doesn't tell what will and won't be known either. rug Sep 2016 #23
How convenient for you. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #80
Describe it then in natural terms. rug Oct 2016 #102
You don't need to know that. Ni tampoco hablar tal tonterias. Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #153
Dr Pross may need to learn thermodynamics better: struggle4progress Sep 2016 #7
Pross is a professor of chemistry. Jim__ Sep 2016 #19
The video may portray his motives well; and he may be a good scientist; but that does not imply struggle4progress Sep 2016 #30
See #148; Averick took certain phrases from different chapters of Pross, reordered them muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #149
That could be -- but it all rapidly falls into an uninteresting category of literary criticism IMO. struggle4progress Oct 2016 #164
A plausible response. (No gods.) immoderate Sep 2016 #8
Is there any good cosmological evidence for the inevitability of life? struggle4progress Sep 2016 #9
I would not say that. Depends on what you consider 'evidence.' immoderate Sep 2016 #12
The only definite conception I could have of "life" would resemble "life-as-we-know-it" struggle4progress Sep 2016 #18
Why would you assume life needs oxygen, or water? immoderate Sep 2016 #21
Our atmospheric O2 has biological origins. O2 is reactive so one might not expect struggle4progress Sep 2016 #29
If we stop spending all our money bombing brown people AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #81
This is less about the creation of life than it is about the creation of matter in the first place, rug Sep 2016 #15
If we assume there's a creator. immoderate Sep 2016 #25
I could have said the genesis of life but that might upset you. rug Sep 2016 #26
Not really. It's about the arrangement of matter - ie the arrangement of atoms muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #38
"the atoms are all there in the first place" rug Sep 2016 #42
It's not 'novel'. It's at the link. muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #43
"the atoms are all there in the first place" rug Sep 2016 #56
"You start with a random clump of atoms". Yes, it is there. muriel_volestrangler Sep 2016 #63
Starting a process with atoms does not mean "the atoms are all there in the first place". rug Sep 2016 #66
'coulda, woulda, shoulda... inexorably acquires key physocal attributes associated with life.' Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #152
A question outside the expertise of a chemist. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #82
Lol, an appeal to authority. rug Oct 2016 #101
Part of the perceived problem ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #10
The question of where the atoms come from is what remains unanswered. rug Sep 2016 #16
I think that only has ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #36
Yes, closing one's mind is always an option. Trouble is, to close on the truth Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #154
Until I have good reason otherwise, I will regard smacking a human with a hammer struggle4progress Sep 2016 #37
I do too because I generally value nonviolence ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #41
The difference is, in some sense, "subjective" -- but the "subjectivity" involved struggle4progress Sep 2016 #49
The difference may be objective, ZombieHorde Sep 2016 #60
For one thing, it takes a lot of pounding to piss off a rock. ChairmanAgnostic Oct 2016 #108
Theists Sill Waiting for the Origin of God Messiah. Doodley Sep 2016 #27
Scroll upthread. rug Sep 2016 #32
I gather the question of where God came from is not mine and mine alone. Doodley Sep 2016 #33
The real question: Did God have consent to ChairmanAgnostic Oct 2016 #109
And people complain about athiest militants. Eko Sep 2016 #28
Do you think the time will come when science will "finally prove" it? rug Sep 2016 #31
I think humans will destroy themselves before that. Doodley Sep 2016 #34
Of course. Eko Sep 2016 #35
So you have faith that scientists will discover the answer? guillaumeb Sep 2016 #40
Ha, Ha. Eko Sep 2016 #44
But all of your response still avoided thr fact that science can only go so far..... guillaumeb Sep 2016 #46
Sure, if you say so Eko Sep 2016 #48
Using "belief" and "faith" in place of evidence is a common tactic of the believer. cleanhippie Sep 2016 #54
Assertion of a fact without evidence is faith. rug Sep 2016 #57
Yeah, No evidence!!! Eko Sep 2016 #58
History is littered with scientific predictions that failed. rug Sep 2016 #59
Yes science is littered with dead theories... uriel1972 Sep 2016 #64
"Science will find the answer" is a statement of faith without evidence. rug Sep 2016 #65
I agree... uriel1972 Sep 2016 #67
I would instead say, 'science is the only credible tool for finding the answer to that question' AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #89
Post removed Post removed Oct 2016 #88
I know enough to deduce that there is no "we" at your keyboard. rug Oct 2016 #95
There's also historical track record that has your God of the gaps AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #87
The only gap here is in your education on the subject. rug Oct 2016 #96
Science can only go so far... says you. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #86
So does anyone who understands the scientific method is not infinite. rug Oct 2016 #98
Actually, some of us understand math, physics and cosmology AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #85
Is that a yes? rug Oct 2016 #157
We've already shown how organic chemicals are spontaneously AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #83
You haven't at all. rug Oct 2016 #100
Where did the matter come from that was affected by the Big Bang? guillaumeb Oct 2016 #115
lol.. opiate69 Oct 2016 #121
But being a non-scientist, and a believer in the Creator, guillaumeb Oct 2016 #122
Simply put, we don't know. opiate69 Oct 2016 #124
Understood. My belief is that the answer is alreasdy here. The Creator. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #125
Do you expect these hypotheses to be proven? rug Oct 2016 #128
Do I expect "these hypotheses" to be proven? opiate69 Oct 2016 #141
That's a hope not an expectation. rug Oct 2016 #142
Bzzt.. wrong again, sir carpet. opiate69 Oct 2016 #143
Nice paraphrase of hope, opiate. rug Oct 2016 #144
*sigh* opiate69 Oct 2016 #145
"The belief or expectation that something wished for can or will happen." rug Oct 2016 #146
Because I'm bored... opiate69 Oct 2016 #185
Sure, I can see these lads and lassies sitting in a rockng-chair and, Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #155
In the sweet bye and bye. rug Oct 2016 #158
Thanks, rug. That's beautiful. One for my Favourites. Did you notice Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #161
The sig line? It's from Acts 4. rug Oct 2016 #163
Yes. But I tend not memorise chapter and verse. The great Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #168
The issue does come down to this: guillaumeb Sep 2016 #39
What? Eko Sep 2016 #45
Proof is not something that is addressed by faith. Faith does not require faith, guillaumeb Sep 2016 #47
Why cant it prove Eko Sep 2016 #50
That the Big Bang happened can be deduced from the movement of the universe. guillaumeb Sep 2016 #51
Yes, Eko Sep 2016 #52
My argument is that one either postulates that there is a Creator, guillaumeb Sep 2016 #68
Well, Eko Sep 2016 #70
Faith does not require proof. guillaumeb Sep 2016 #71
How can belief in something without evidence be positive? cleanhippie Sep 2016 #75
Explain how belief is positive or negative. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #113
Being that this is the Religion group, I figured the type of belief were talking about was implied. cleanhippie Oct 2016 #147
Belief in a deity is an affirmation. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #166
Until one postulates that there is a creator, there is no disagreement. cleanhippie Sep 2016 #74
You don't know that when you switch the living-room light on, it will Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #156
ummm no... uriel1972 Sep 2016 #61
I don't need a basis to reject an unfounded and unprovable claim. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #84
Good luck with that, as far as science will take you. guillaumeb Oct 2016 #114
Linguistic bullshit to justify belief in sky fairies Roland99 Sep 2016 #53
Lackadaisical meme to promote bullshit. rug Sep 2016 #55
You're just filling in gaps with a fictional character Bradical79 Sep 2016 #72
And you're just regurgitating tired, inaccurate and unoriginal memes. rug Sep 2016 #73
It's entirely accurate Bradical79 Sep 2016 #76
I'll assume "an intelegent being" is a typo. rug Sep 2016 #78
Contemplate away, sir. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #90
"fucking prove it"? rug Oct 2016 #92
It's a long-winded god of the gaps argument. pokerfan Sep 2016 #62
Ayup. Pure mental laziness. A desire and willingness to suspend critical thinking... Roland99 Sep 2016 #69
Pretty much Bradical79 Sep 2016 #77
Yes it is a silly post. rogerashton Oct 2016 #105
Well, that was a complete waste of time . . . hatrack Oct 2016 #111
Thanks for that insight. rug Oct 2016 #117
What?? deathrind Oct 2016 #112
The first describes many forms of life. rug Oct 2016 #116
The Universe is huge or infinite. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #118
That begs the question. How did the (natural) dumb matter and energy get there? rug Oct 2016 #119
It's a brute fact of nature that dumb matter and energy exist. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #120
The nature of those things belies that. rug Oct 2016 #123
You're arguing against the existence of a god unless you can explain who or what made god. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #126
No. The argument of infinite regression misses the point. rug Oct 2016 #127
Inventing a completely different and massively complex reality is no solution. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #129
You're asking fior a natural explanation for an event that would have to be supernatural. rug Oct 2016 #130
OK, I can play your game. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #131
"does not have to be explained" is a piss-poor answer, especially when science strives to explain it rug Oct 2016 #132
I don't think that is an answer, but you do. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #133
You miss again the difference between "doesn't have to" and "can't". rug Oct 2016 #134
If it can't be explained then it can be disregarded since the "can't" be explained cpwm17 Oct 2016 #135
Define the evidence required. rug Oct 2016 #136
Show me that we live in a world that does not work through natural processes cpwm17 Oct 2016 #137
No, the question at hand is how the world got here in the first place. rug Oct 2016 #138
I wrote: "You still need an answer for the problem of god's existence cpwm17 Oct 2016 #139
If you reject both the idea of a creator and the idea of an infinte eternal universe, what's left? rug Oct 2016 #140
Early in this sub thread I wrote: cpwm17 Oct 2016 #169
No matter how many (purely hypothetical) universe and multiverses, rug Oct 2016 #170
You have much the same issue concerning an always existing god. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #171
If the rationale is a natural one. rug Oct 2016 #172
But you are then claiming if reality is difficult to explain then it must be by magic cpwm17 Oct 2016 #173
Magic is not logic. I'm sorry your difficulty in explaining has led you to that error. rug Oct 2016 #174
The arguments you make are arguments against your god. cpwm17 Oct 2016 #183
It's time people see how Moshe Averick manipulated the quotes from Professor Pross muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #148
Last I heard, rug, Dawkins now describes himself as an agnostic. The facts Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #151
He allows a 0.0142 chance that he's wrong. rug Oct 2016 #160
Absolutely. He's been making more and more of an ass of himself, lately. Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #162
You do know that Einstein was an agnostic pantheist, right? He didn't believe in a personal god... Humanist_Activist Oct 2016 #176
Not believing in a personal God is not to be an agnostic. It is Joe Chi Minh Oct 2016 #184
Oh look, Rug posting a post that dishonestly quote-mines a scientist to support creationism... Humanist_Activist Oct 2016 #175
Rug's OP is an inside-joke. A reply to another over-the-top OP by another DUer. DetlefK Oct 2016 #177
You have it backwards. Check the time stamps on the OPs. rug Oct 2016 #179
Oh look. Humanist Activist is upset. rug Oct 2016 #178
Face it, rug, you're promoting an infamous intelligent design advocate muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #181
I'm not promoting anything, muriel. rug Oct 2016 #182
This is the way things work anoNY42 Oct 2016 #180
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Atheists Still Waiting fo...»Reply #78