AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by clayto
Post reply
Reply to the message by
clayto
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> There is nothing in David Turell's response I have any problem with, except perhaps to make the point that my analogy with fire was not intended to be taken literally or as a scientific comparison, merely to emphasis the point that things happen 'naturally' when the necessary conditions apply (and I do not find the expression 'mindless chance' to be very meaningful). Clearly [b]all[/b] the necessary conditions for life origination are as yet unknown (though many are known) and are obviously much less common than in the case of fire (but there is no certainty or even probability about 'uniqueness'). - With regard to dhw's response there are some points / assumptions which I question or require clarification for such as - '2. Beliefs: a) where conditions are right for life, it will generate itself spontaneously (= atheist);' ---- I don't see that '= atheist' is at all valid. It is perfectly possible to believe in spontaneous life generation' without being atheist, to think otherwise seems culturally confined just to those theistic religions and traditions which make a big thing of a god having originated life, there are theistic religionists which do not take that position, including those who believe god created the universe but then allowed it to evolve to include the emergence and development of life. - That was perhaps something of a pedantic point. More significantly 'so why can't you wait and see' seems an odd remark. Of course I can and must wait and see, there is no alternative, though I regret the probability that I will never 'see' as although it is possible I doubt that in my remaining life time (a) science will make the 'ultimate' discovery about the origin of life (b) we will observe or be in communication with life from / on other planets (despite Seti) - plus 'So what is it that gives you your inner conviction?' I don't have any [b]convictions[/b] at all on this or anything else. I am a total hard agnostic. I live with uncertainty and at the best probabilities. I believe (which is very different to 'I have faith') in the probability of the (widespread) existence of life for a number of reasons (reasons, not certainties) including - (a) the now well established evidence (most scientists do now say certainty) of the commonality of the physical nature of the universe throughout (elements, processes, laws, etc) (b) the vastness of the universe (not to mention the multiverse) with its billions of star systems and hence the numerical probability of what is found here being found elsewhere, frequently (c) growing evidence and observations of the existence of planets in other solar systems to further support (b), with further breakthrough in knowledge expected soon (d) the history of the retreat of egocentricity including understandings that we are not the only planet / world, it (and we) are not at the centre of the solar system, the solar system is not at the centre of the universe, our galaxy is not at the centre of the universe (and now maybe our universe is not the only universe or at the centre of the multiverse!) - It is quite possible that we are the only life, the only consciousness and intelligence that exists anywhere. Possible, yes, but to think it probable seems to me to be a persistence of that infantile (deliberately chosen word which I can explain) egocentricity which we have been painfully growing away from for centuries. - clayto
OK - Submit
Preview