I think your missing a word there…how do you xxxxx
If you have philosophical a priori arguments for an absolute morality let’s hear it. It seems that’s really where the crux of the disagreement is
This is your passive aggressive way of claiming that you’re smarter than other people because you believe Jesus?
Evolution? Oh, is that the one where they say we come from some kind of primordial slime. Yeah, that sounds very convincing. I’m sure you have a very good explanation of how you’re transformed or evolved from slime…go ahead now tell us all…I’m on the edge of my seat.
You’ll have to be more specific. Evolution doesnt say we came from slime. But hey if you want to believe some guy rose from the dead and walked on water, I guess that’s easier than doing research, studying discrete mathematics, biology, statistics and chemistry. So where do you want to start?
Have you studied Hebrew?
So, you’re determined to believe your way, that’s your choice. You want to believe your the product of some sort of physical-biological transformation starting with some primordial substance, go right on ahead. But just know that Jesus still loves you.
To me this is an ad hominem type of argument. Notions regarding God, morals, an afterlife, etc., are about an intense human belief about there being something more/greater/better than this world here. None of us can prove or falsify such things.
No it’s not. You are asserting a premise, namely that these things that are metaphysical actually exist metaphysically as an absolute and expect us to take it for granted that they do. I can make assertions that BigFoot is metaphysical too. Philosophy doesnt work by simply asserting premises. And again, you keep getting stuck on what you can or cant prove. How about WHY I or you should believe something? Why dont you believe I can speak to the dead? I speak metaphysically to them. You cant disprove it. So do you believe me?
You havent defined “absolute”. You havent maxd ahh a priori arguments why certain things are metaphysical, why they must be so. You’ve simply just asserted that they are so. And that doesnt cut it in philosophy, atheist or not.
How do you propose one would prove abiogenesis?
And as has been discussed in this thread and others, could be an emotional motive for why people project realities through their own subjectivity
I dont know, but there have been many different lab results beyond the miller experiment suggesting there is a reasonable basis for biochemical evolution of polymers to self replicating RNA. It’s the theory with the most evidence. Do you believe aliens from an undiscovered planet planted us here to mine gold? Prove they didnt.
Well, yea. When you define something as unprovable and unfalsifiable, by the definition you give it, then assert its existence, then it’s a very convenient copout to not be bound by any rational basis for which you believe it to be so. It’s like me defining a “doggleboop” as an entity only I can experience, then me asserting a “doggleboop” is real, then anything you say I can just say, well, you cant experience my “doggleboop”, so you cant prove it diesnt exist, so yea. It’s just a really weak argument.
I haven’t asserted anything other than that water freezes, boils, and melts at specific temperatures so long as pressure is held constant at 1 atm or 101 kpa. I don’t profess to KNOW that my views are TRUE. All I’m saying is none us can be certain on these matters in the same way we can be certain about the physical transitions of water.
Well what the hell then lol - we are expressing our opinions here on these matters. Everyone has beliefs about what they think is true and isnt. On what basis they should believe something and on what basis they shouldn’t. I dont know why this conversation is getting so unfocused
Ya we all have different opinions, no one knows anything with 100% certainty. So what?
I mean let’s just cut to the chase…I think therefore I am, right?
On what basis is certainty calculated? Surely some things are more certain than others. But why?
I’m familiar with these experiments. They are all very speculative. Also the key to these experiments is that human beings were involved with them working typically in tiny little flasks not in the vastness of the atmosphere. It’s one thing for a chemist to do something in a flask it’s a whole different thing to conceive of how “nature” would do it.
Do you think they are our best “guesses”? Do you think abiogenesis is the current leading theory? Or do you believe “God” intervened?