Awakened07
You told: I think that if science hadn't answered any questions regarding how the universe and species (and possibly life itself) emerged, I would have been a deist based on the above and other questions, and lack of personal experience with a deity. As it is, I don't think I would have been a theist.
For me it is new. Did science answered this? In particulary, where could I read some papers about abiogenesis repeated empirically, it's mathematical (it is language of physics) apparatus and more, where could I get to know new emerging technologies of IT software which employs the process/math to generate new software without human interference, plainly using this process which generated life from nonlife.
If there is no empirical evidence of repeated abiogenesis demonstrated, if there is no mathematical apparatus which describes such process, then I guess you are lying or just interpretating some data to favour such process which is not demosnstrated. But I could demonstrate you how mind can produce spciefied complexity and even some basic building blocks of life - proteins! Ahh yes, may be science has explained mind itself too, that would make software engineer job unnecessary and would produce AI... do we have such case?
-Look again at what you just quoted: "(and possibly life itself)" . Empirical evidence for abiogenesis does not exist as we both know, and neither does a fully fledged theory. I said possibly because evolutionary processes can be followed through right down to the first few organisms, and I personally don't see any reason to stop there, seeing how organic matter does bond and is able to comprise complex chains in nature. To ask me for empirical evidence in a sarcastic manner is a straw man, since I didn't posit that any such exists. To say I'm "lying or [something else]" is like a lawyer saying "I retract the last remark your honor", knowing full well it sank in with the jury anyway. My 'possibly' was the shortest I could make that sentence and still say how I feel about that process. Only, now I had to elaborate anyway...
We believe in God of gaps, you believe in "future materialistic explanation". It is nice to see atheist to refer to some explanation which is supposted to appear somwhere in near future as it is allready prooven fact.
Talk about going off on a tangent on a non-existent argument; I think you're arguing against a 'shadow-atheist' here, not my post. My: "(and possibly life itself)" suddenly became "refer to some explanation [...] as it is already proven fact". You deride me for 'believing' certain explanations derived from evidence in other areas and logically extrapolated on, while you yourself is quite comfortable trusting in... no evidence at all? Accepting some circumstantial evidence that points to a certain conclusion or direction, although not yet proven, is stupid, while believing the same process has come about by an invisible, non-provable entity is... much better?
Most funny is that materialist allows only materialistic explanation of phenomena and most funny, only such explanation which fits current knwoledge of how Universe works (hmmm what would brother Raits would say about such reasoning)... and this view by very definition exlcudes any other explanation which means IF the phenomena is outside of materialistic paradigm, then materialists will not be able to see it by the limitation of methodological naturalism which atheists mix with phylosophical naturalism... Even if there IS God materialists will never experience him as they just do not allow nonmaterialistic beings to exist! Materialist definition of objective existence is subjective perception. Things start to exist only when materialist percieves them and can describe them, until then... it does not exist objectively! :) And how do you actually cross the streets without being hit by bus?
Why is this funny? I mean, I realize it's a way of forming sentences in a mocking, sarcastic way, but besides that; what's so funny? We can examine the physical universe with our senses and logic, yes (how else?). But to go beyond what we can find in that manner would be... wise? Anyway, you do touch on a very real, possible conundrum, I'll freely admit. And - I said as much in my first post in this thread when I talked about the unknown artist and his brush. The thing is; any invisible thing can be posited without proof - it may be true - it may be there. How are we to know? "Invisible pink unicorns", FSM etc. are just used as vehicles to get across how absurd it is. The difference of course lies in one thing: God is supposed to be responsible for creation, and - He allegedly intervenes in people's everyday life. As opposed to the other, fantasy figures like the mentioned unicorns etc. So - we need to find evidence in nature then, for a Creator God. Personal experience can't really count as evidence, unless it can be demonstrated that you've miraculously re-grown an amputated leg etc. As for evidence of a Creator then, it's most often pointed to complexity in nature, and - as seems to be your main argument - information. Complexity from simple beginnings is very well explained through various theories (in cosmology as well as biology), and your example of information as in a computer program is flawed for the same reason the argument about nuts and bolts not becoming a car etc. is flawed. There is no mechanism for information to come about 'by chance'; a computer program cannot replicate from a simple 0 and 1 into something complex on it's own. This is true. Neither can nuts, bolts, sheets of steel etc. gather together to form a car on it's own. This is also true. Organic material can and will bond however. And - if we look beyond abiogenesis and over at evolution - 'simple' origins of species demonstrably has evolved into more complex ones. But of course - the initial information; the initial self-replicating molecules, must have been there for anything to start. We haven't demonstrated this fully. Science doesn't have all the answers. But for how long has science dabbled in these questions? 150 years or so? It is true that an atheist has to have a materialist view of the universe; to simply insert an invisible entity to solve a problem is not a solution at all, no matter how much we'd want it to be true. A mathematician can't solve half of a complex math problem, then write "-And here a miracle happens", and then write his answer without explaining how he reached that conclusion. Could he claim to be 'persecuted for his beliefs' if he was asked to explain or discard the 'miracle'? A supernatural explanation is not really an explanation. It's just an unsupported assertion. At least in areas of sciences and mathematics. Anyway - we shouldn't need to prove God - he/she/it/they should be fully capable of doing so for us.
