Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abiogenesis True or false?

dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 12:50:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wrong question. But then you know that, right?

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and there are several competing models. There is no true or false answer to a hypothesis, only evidence for or against.

All of this is wasted on you though. Please proceed with whatever rant you have planned. We will ignore it whilst we have a quiet chuckle at the lengths (depths) that theists will sink to for their deity.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 1:29:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

True..

The universe didn't contain life for a long time, and then it did, so abiogenesis must have occurred.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 8:09:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

There are two key contending classes of scientific conjecture for the origin of life on earth, Sooner. One is that it arose spontaneously through a series of chemical reactions on Earth. Some such candidate reactions have been found, though possible pathways are still being explored. This conjecture is the one typically called 'abiogenesis'.

The other is that it was seeded from off-earth, either as simple life or pre-life precursors. There's strong evidence in support of this theory too, since biological precursors are often found in extraterrestrial material, and there has been some conjecture of having found simple, non-terrestrial life too -- though assembling evidence that the life is non-terrestrial tends to be problematic.

In the event that life were seeded from off-earth, it's conjectured that simple life (like viruses or bacteria) may appear abiogenetically in cosmic dust, for example. So seeding life on earth may end up being an example of a different kind of abiogenesis anyway.

The search for life on nearby planets and moons is viewed as key in distinguishing between these classes of conjecture, since life appearing under terrestrial conditions should be repeatable under similar conditions, but not under different conditions, while life coming from stellar dust should also be seen in non-terrestrial conditions.

I hope that may help.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 1:27:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

How would abiogenesis negate free will or rationality? What if free will and rationality are products of inevitable blind chemistry?

Most morality already is subjective. For example, what is fair punishment for a crime? That is a subjective judgement. But I would argue that there is still objective morality even in a purely materialistic worldview. For example violating another person's bodily rights is objectively wrong.

Yes we are all just electrochemistry when it comes down to it. But its not random or blind. Through evolution, our bodies and minds have taken a certain measure of control over those processes. From that control comes things like free will, rationality, morality, etc.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 1:27:25 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

How would abiogenesis negate free will or rationality? What if free will and rationality are products of inevitable blind chemistry?

Most morality already is subjective. For example, what is fair punishment for a crime? That is a subjective judgement. But I would argue that there is still objective morality even in a purely materialistic worldview. For example violating another person's bodily rights is objectively wrong.

Yes we are all just electrochemistry when it comes down to it. But its not random or blind. Through evolution, our bodies and minds have taken a certain measure of control over those processes. From that control comes things like free will, rationality, morality, etc.

If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .
Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 3:00:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 1:27:25 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

How would abiogenesis negate free will or rationality? What if free will and rationality are products of inevitable blind chemistry?

Most morality already is subjective. For example, what is fair punishment for a crime? That is a subjective judgement. But I would argue that there is still objective morality even in a purely materialistic worldview. For example violating another person's bodily rights is objectively wrong.

Yes we are all just electrochemistry when it comes down to it. But its not random or blind. Through evolution, our bodies and minds have taken a certain measure of control over those processes. From that control comes things like free will, rationality, morality, etc.

If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .
Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Again you've made lots of assertions but you have provided no justification for them.

The processes are not random. They are governed by the laws of physics, and put to practical use by evolution and natural selection. This is not random, but selective.

There is absolutely control in chemical reactions. There is an entire field of engineering dedicated solely to controlling chemical reactions.

But even if everything you said was correct (which its not), and abiogenesis meant that we didn't have free will, or rationality, or objective morality, it would still not be a valid argument. Whether or not you like the implications of something has no bearing on whether it is true or false. If something is true, its true whether we like it or not.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 1:27:25 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

How would abiogenesis negate free will or rationality? What if free will and rationality are products of inevitable blind chemistry?

Most morality already is subjective. For example, what is fair punishment for a crime? That is a subjective judgement. But I would argue that there is still objective morality even in a purely materialistic worldview. For example violating another person's bodily rights is objectively wrong.

Yes we are all just electrochemistry when it comes down to it. But its not random or blind. Through evolution, our bodies and minds have taken a certain measure of control over those processes. From that control comes things like free will, rationality, morality, etc.

If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.

Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 3:33:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 3:00:29 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 1:27:25 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

How would abiogenesis negate free will or rationality? What if free will and rationality are products of inevitable blind chemistry?

Most morality already is subjective. For example, what is fair punishment for a crime? That is a subjective judgement. But I would argue that there is still objective morality even in a purely materialistic worldview. For example violating another person's bodily rights is objectively wrong.

Yes we are all just electrochemistry when it comes down to it. But its not random or blind. Through evolution, our bodies and minds have taken a certain measure of control over those processes. From that control comes things like free will, rationality, morality, etc.

If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .
Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Again you've made lots of assertions but you have provided no justification for them.

The processes are not random. They are governed by the laws of physics, and put to practical use by evolution and natural selection. This is not random, but selective.

You make it sound like the laws of physics are a person that controlled everything. You are attributing characteristics to nature as if it is some kind of god it seems like.

There is absolutely control in chemical reactions. There is an entire field of engineering dedicated solely to controlling chemical reactions.

Yes people control things. But chemicals don't have opinions. What is doing the controlling?

But even if everything you said was correct (which its not), and abiogenesis meant that we didn't have free will, or rationality, or objective morality, it would still not be a valid argument. Whether or not you like the implications of something has no bearing on whether it is true or false. If something is true, its true whether we like it or not.

We do have rationality, and I hope you believe in some kind of right and wrong. My argument is that if abiogenesis was true, those things wouldn't exist. My opposition is a logical one, not an emotional one. If abiogenisis was true, rationality and free will would not exist. Free will and rationality does exist, therefor abiogenisis is not true. This is a deductive argument.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 3:40:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 1:27:25 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

How would abiogenesis negate free will or rationality? What if free will and rationality are products of inevitable blind chemistry?

Most morality already is subjective. For example, what is fair punishment for a crime? That is a subjective judgement. But I would argue that there is still objective morality even in a purely materialistic worldview. For example violating another person's bodily rights is objectively wrong.

Yes we are all just electrochemistry when it comes down to it. But its not random or blind. Through evolution, our bodies and minds have taken a certain measure of control over those processes. From that control comes things like free will, rationality, morality, etc.

If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.
Yes, we are INFLUENCED by biological factors. I agree
Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Either God made us or we are the result of abiogenisis. The latter doesn't allow for free will.
Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.

Exactly my point. Morality would be nothing but opinion.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 3:40:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.
Yes, we are INFLUENCED by biological factors. I agree

As I said, that's for starters. But, you didn't answer the question; what exactly IS free will? Does someone with a psychological condition have free will?

If our will is so free, why is it that the field of psychology can exist? It reflects that human minds are so similar that we can create pretty reliable models that predict how people think, act, and make decisions in a given context. We also have techniques and medications that can directly alter a person's thought processes reliably. This places our minds more on metaphorical railroad tracks than being able to go anywhere.

Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Either God made us or we are the result of abiogenisis. The latter doesn't allow for free will.

My point is that the former has the same plausibility as the latter in regard to the existence of free will. Additionally, your second statement here is a bare assertion originating from intuitive reasoning.

Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.

Exactly my point. Morality would be nothing but opinion.

This is irrelevant to abiogenesis. Morality is already an opinion as demonstrated by the differing opinions on things like capital punishment and in the customs of the more savage groups of humans. This is a separate, philosophical issue.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 4:26:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

Abiogenesis is not an assertion or proposition. Assertions can be "true" or "false," but such terms cannot be coherently applied to hypotheses. The question should be: "is there any evidence for the occurrence of abiogenesis?"
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 1:27:25 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry. Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes. Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

How would abiogenesis negate free will or rationality? What if free will and rationality are products of inevitable blind chemistry?

Most morality already is subjective. For example, what is fair punishment for a crime? That is a subjective judgement. But I would argue that there is still objective morality even in a purely materialistic worldview. For example violating another person's bodily rights is objectively wrong.

Yes we are all just electrochemistry when it comes down to it. But its not random or blind. Through evolution, our bodies and minds have taken a certain measure of control over those processes. From that control comes things like free will, rationality, morality, etc.

If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .
Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

How would you be able to tell the difference between our actions being truly free will and our actions being solely the result of complex chemistry?

How would you be able to tell the difference with "true" morality and "evolved" morality?

If you can't tell the difference then you can't tell that those things actually exist, leave alone us them as a justification for why a theory is false.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:15:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
False.

Abiogenesis is false because everything is alive. Life is energy,and everything has energy.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 5:52:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist.

What's interesting is that you have a picture of Spock with the word "Logic" in your avatar, yet everything you said here completely lacks any kind of logic.

How do you jump to the conclusion of no free will from abiogenesis? Where is the connection between the two?

Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry.

Blind chemistry? Is that how you think abiogenesis works?

Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will

It does? Since when? How are those two even related in any way?

, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes.

It does? Since when? How are those two even related in any way?

Morality would also cease to be objective.

Morality is objective? Since when?

With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas. Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals.

How do you make the gigantic leap from chemical processes to the meaning of right and wrong?

Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

Ah, so you have completely forgotten that abiogenesis does not produce the brain, which instead is produced through evolution. Here is where your complete lack of logic becomes painfully evident.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:00:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 4:04:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:40:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.
Yes, we are INFLUENCED by biological factors. I agree

As I said, that's for starters. But, you didn't answer the question; what exactly IS free will? Does someone with a psychological condition have free will?

If our will is so free, why is it that the field of psychology can exist? It reflects that human minds are so similar that we can create pretty reliable models that predict how people think, act, and make decisions in a given context. We also have techniques and medications that can directly alter a person's thought processes reliably. This places our minds more on metaphorical railroad tracks than being able to go anywhere.

You are referring to science, and our ability to predict things, and yet you say there is not free will. Science, rational reasoning, and our ability to predict things presuppose that we have free will. Without free will, how are those things possible? Also, if abiogenesis is true, our thoughts would be the result of random chance. Science would not be rational, it would have come from the result of random chance. Same thing with reasoning. Abiogenesis is a very unreasonable explanation of life

Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Either God made us or we are the result of abiogenisis. The latter doesn't allow for free will.

My point is that the former has the same plausibility as the latter in regard to the existence of free will. Additionally, your second statement here is a bare assertion originating from intuitive reasoning.

Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.

Exactly my point. Morality would be nothing but opinion.

This is irrelevant to abiogenesis. Morality is already an opinion as demonstrated by the differing opinions on things like capital punishment and in the customs of the more savage groups of humans. This is a separate, philosophical issue.

Morality is drastically important in this issue. With your reasoning, there is no right and wrong. Morality would be simply opinion. Murder and such would not be "right" or "wrong". You could then never complain about what people do. There is no free will anyway from your point of view.

But right and wrong does exist. It is wrong to murder, and society works and judges accordingly. The government makes laws by what is the "right" law to make and what is the "wrong" law to make. Doing what "ought" to happen is how government works. We couldn't have these things if abiogenesis was true.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:04:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 6:00:31 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:04:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:40:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.
Yes, we are INFLUENCED by biological factors. I agree

As I said, that's for starters. But, you didn't answer the question; what exactly IS free will? Does someone with a psychological condition have free will?

If our will is so free, why is it that the field of psychology can exist? It reflects that human minds are so similar that we can create pretty reliable models that predict how people think, act, and make decisions in a given context. We also have techniques and medications that can directly alter a person's thought processes reliably. This places our minds more on metaphorical railroad tracks than being able to go anywhere.

You are referring to science, and our ability to predict things, and yet you say there is not free will. Science, rational reasoning, and our ability to predict things presuppose that we have free will. Without free will, how are those things possible? Also, if abiogenesis is true, our thoughts would be the result of random chance. Science would not be rational, it would have come from the result of random chance. Same thing with reasoning. Abiogenesis is a very unreasonable explanation of life

Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Either God made us or we are the result of abiogenisis. The latter doesn't allow for free will.

My point is that the former has the same plausibility as the latter in regard to the existence of free will. Additionally, your second statement here is a bare assertion originating from intuitive reasoning.

Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.

Exactly my point. Morality would be nothing but opinion.

This is irrelevant to abiogenesis. Morality is already an opinion as demonstrated by the differing opinions on things like capital punishment and in the customs of the more savage groups of humans. This is a separate, philosophical issue.

Morality is drastically important in this issue. With your reasoning, there is no right and wrong. Morality would be simply opinion. Murder and such would not be "right" or "wrong". You could then never complain about what people do. There is no free will anyway from your point of view.


But right and wrong does exist. It is wrong to murder, and society works and judges accordingly. The government makes laws by what is the "right" law to make and what is the "wrong" law to make. Doing what "ought" to happen is how government works. We couldn't have these things if abiogenesis was true.

Right and wrong are subjective. What is "murder"? Is it wrong to kill a serial killer on Death Row? (Some think it is, some not). Is is wrong to kill in self defence, or in the defence of others? Is abortion murder? It's all relative.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:28:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 6:00:31 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:04:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:40:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.
Yes, we are INFLUENCED by biological factors. I agree

As I said, that's for starters. But, you didn't answer the question; what exactly IS free will? Does someone with a psychological condition have free will?

If our will is so free, why is it that the field of psychology can exist? It reflects that human minds are so similar that we can create pretty reliable models that predict how people think, act, and make decisions in a given context. We also have techniques and medications that can directly alter a person's thought processes reliably. This places our minds more on metaphorical railroad tracks than being able to go anywhere.

You are referring to science, and our ability to predict things, and yet you say there is not free will. Science, rational reasoning, and our ability to predict things presuppose that we have free will. Without free will, how are those things possible? Also, if abiogenesis is true, our thoughts would be the result of random chance. Science would not be rational, it would have come from the result of random chance. Same thing with reasoning. Abiogenesis is a very unreasonable explanation of life

The concept of free will is akin to that of random; they both require the result to be unknown. If you had a die and know matter what way you rolled it, and you always *knew* the result, then the illusion of "random" is shattered. similarly, if you have a mega-computer that could perform all of the physics calculations and know the result of the die roll beforehand, it is likewise shattered.

Have you heard it said that free will is an illusion? This works the same way; if we don't know the future of our decisions, then there is absolutely nothing to distinguish free will and non-free will. We can operate under the feeling of free will because we can't break that illusion. Even if an omniscient being knew every decision you would make for your entire life, you would still be under the impression that you have free will. But from an outside perspective on that, do you really have free will if all of your decisions can be known before they even come about? Free will is as equally incoherent from a typical theistic creation standpoint.

BTW - you still haven't really explained what you think "free will" is, and that is pretty important to this discussion. Furthermore, why is the fact that our thoughts come from "random chance" irrational?

Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Either God made us or we are the result of abiogenisis. The latter doesn't allow for free will.

My point is that the former has the same plausibility as the latter in regard to the existence of free will. Additionally, your second statement here is a bare assertion originating from intuitive reasoning.

Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.

Exactly my point. Morality would be nothing but opinion.

This is irrelevant to abiogenesis. Morality is already an opinion as demonstrated by the differing opinions on things like capital punishment and in the customs of the more savage groups of humans. This is a separate, philosophical issue.

Morality is drastically important in this issue. With your reasoning, there is no right and wrong. Morality would be simply opinion. Murder and such would not be "right" or "wrong". You could then never complain about what people do. There is no free will anyway from your point of view.

Even if I was a theist, I would believe that morality is subjective. I do not believe that it is possible to demonstrate that morality is objective. It is merely an intuitive conclusion. Anyway, a lack of objective morality does not imply that there will be a lack of morality.

But right and wrong does exist. It is wrong to murder, and society works and judges accordingly. The government makes laws by what is the "right" law to make and what is the "wrong" law to make. Doing what "ought" to happen is how government works. We couldn't have these things if abiogenesis was true.

It exists because we have decreed it such for the benefit of society. Murder is not a good example because that word already has the moral implications built it, as it is defined as "unlawful" killing. I fail to see how abiogenesis would be incompatible with morality.

The topic of free will and morality is a philosophical issue, so I would recommend starting another topic about these things in the appropriate forum.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 8:43:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 6:28:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 6:00:31 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:04:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:40:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.
Yes, we are INFLUENCED by biological factors. I agree

As I said, that's for starters. But, you didn't answer the question; what exactly IS free will? Does someone with a psychological condition have free will?

If our will is so free, why is it that the field of psychology can exist? It reflects that human minds are so similar that we can create pretty reliable models that predict how people think, act, and make decisions in a given context. We also have techniques and medications that can directly alter a person's thought processes reliably. This places our minds more on metaphorical railroad tracks than being able to go anywhere.

You are referring to science, and our ability to predict things, and yet you say there is not free will. Science, rational reasoning, and our ability to predict things presuppose that we have free will. Without free will, how are those things possible? Also, if abiogenesis is true, our thoughts would be the result of random chance. Science would not be rational, it would have come from the result of random chance. Same thing with reasoning. Abiogenesis is a very unreasonable explanation of life

The concept of free will is akin to that of random; they both require the result to be unknown. If you had a die and know matter what way you rolled it, and you always *knew* the result, then the illusion of "random" is shattered. similarly, if you have a mega-computer that could perform all of the physics calculations and know the result of the die roll beforehand, it is likewise shattered.

Have you heard it said that free will is an illusion? This works the same way; if we don't know the future of our decisions, then there is absolutely nothing to distinguish free will and non-free will. We can operate under the feeling of free will because we can't break that illusion. Even if an omniscient being knew every decision you would make for your entire life, you would still be under the impression that you have free will. But from an outside perspective on that, do you really have free will if all of your decisions can be known before they even come about? Free will is as equally incoherent from a typical theistic creation standpoint.

BTW - you still haven't really explained what you think "free will" is, and that is pretty important to this discussion. Furthermore, why is the fact that our thoughts come from "random chance" irrational?

Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Either God made us or we are the result of abiogenisis. The latter doesn't allow for free will.

My point is that the former has the same plausibility as the latter in regard to the existence of free will. Additionally, your second statement here is a bare assertion originating from intuitive reasoning.

Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.

Exactly my point. Morality would be nothing but opinion.

This is irrelevant to abiogenesis. Morality is already an opinion as demonstrated by the differing opinions on things like capital punishment and in the customs of the more savage groups of humans. This is a separate, philosophical issue.

Morality is drastically important in this issue. With your reasoning, there is no right and wrong. Morality would be simply opinion. Murder and such would not be "right" or "wrong". You could then never complain about what people do. There is no free will anyway from your point of view.

Even if I was a theist, I would believe that morality is subjective. I do not believe that it is possible to demonstrate that morality is objective. It is merely an intuitive conclusion. Anyway, a lack of objective morality does not imply that there will be a lack of morality.

But right and wrong does exist. It is wrong to murder, and society works and judges accordingly. The government makes laws by what is the "right" law to make and what is the "wrong" law to make. Doing what "ought" to happen is how government works. We couldn't have these things if abiogenesis was true.

It exists because we have decreed it such for the benefit of society. Murder is not a good example because that word already has the moral implications built it, as it is defined as "unlawful" killing. I fail to see how abiogenesis would be incompatible with morality.

The topic of free will and morality is a philosophical issue, so I would recommend starting another topic about these things in the appropriate forum.

You could create your own moral code, but it would be a meaningless opinion. Murder is defined a "unlawful" killing. But laws have to do with what "should" and "shouldn't" be, laws deal with what is moral. There is no meaningful definition of law if abiogenesis is true, there would only be opinion. Morality would be meaningless. Saying murder is wrong would be only an opinion, which has no real value. It says it in the definition that it is wrong, but right and wrong only make since and have value if abiogenesis is false. The concept of murder, in a way, disproves abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis leads to the conclusion that morality, rationality, and freedom does not exist. But in this argument we use standards of right and wrong, we use reasoning, and we have the ability to freely choose what we see as the best conclusion from our discussion. This discussion we are having right now proves that abiogenesis is false.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 8:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 6:04:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 8/10/2015 6:00:31 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 4:04:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:40:16 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 3:03:04 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 2:28:02 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
If we came to be through random posseses, then freedom doesn't exist. Our thoughts and actions would just be the result of chemistry. There is no "control" in chemical reactions. Chemicals just react, they don't say "I feel like reacting with vinegar today" .

What exactly do you think Free Will is? For starters, you are greatly and constantly influenced by many biological urges and reactions, such as hunger and anger. Look into some basic neurology and psychology about subconscious decision-making and you'll see that we are in far less control of our minds than we generally think.
Yes, we are INFLUENCED by biological factors. I agree

As I said, that's for starters. But, you didn't answer the question; what exactly IS free will? Does someone with a psychological condition have free will?

If our will is so free, why is it that the field of psychology can exist? It reflects that human minds are so similar that we can create pretty reliable models that predict how people think, act, and make decisions in a given context. We also have techniques and medications that can directly alter a person's thought processes reliably. This places our minds more on metaphorical railroad tracks than being able to go anywhere.

You are referring to science, and our ability to predict things, and yet you say there is not free will. Science, rational reasoning, and our ability to predict things presuppose that we have free will. Without free will, how are those things possible? Also, if abiogenesis is true, our thoughts would be the result of random chance. Science would not be rational, it would have come from the result of random chance. Same thing with reasoning. Abiogenesis is a very unreasonable explanation of life

Aside from that, say we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent creator was responsible for our existence (which is not eternal). Everything that you are, biologically and spiritually, is necessarily created as per the will of the creator, including the decision-making mechanisms that you possess (and how you feel about things). So, since your ability to make decisions is a result of the direct and intentional design, can you really call it "Free Will"?

Either God made us or we are the result of abiogenisis. The latter doesn't allow for free will.

My point is that the former has the same plausibility as the latter in regard to the existence of free will. Additionally, your second statement here is a bare assertion originating from intuitive reasoning.

Morality would mean nothing. What "ought to happen" would become a meaningless statement. Morality would be nothing. Morality would be the result of random proseses. It would be the inevidable result from blind chemistry, just like human action
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis are extensive.

Moral nihilism does not render morality meaningless. Many people share the same opinions on what is moral or immoral, at least when it comes to essential topics such as stealing and killing. Just because an action isn't innately immoral, does mean that a group of people can't declare it immoral and act accordingly. People can agree on what is best for everyone in a society based on how they wish to be treated.

Exactly my point. Morality would be nothing but opinion.

This is irrelevant to abiogenesis. Morality is already an opinion as demonstrated by the differing opinions on things like capital punishment and in the customs of the more savage groups of humans. This is a separate, philosophical issue.

Morality is drastically important in this issue. With your reasoning, there is no right and wrong. Morality would be simply opinion. Murder and such would not be "right" or "wrong". You could then never complain about what people do. There is no free will anyway from your point of view.


But right and wrong does exist. It is wrong to murder, and society works and judges accordingly. The government makes laws by what is the "right" law to make and what is the "wrong" law to make. Doing what "ought" to happen is how government works. We couldn't have these things if abiogenesis was true.

Right and wrong are subjective. What is "murder"? Is it wrong to kill a serial killer on Death Row? (Some think it is, some not). Is is wrong to kill in self defence, or in the defence of others? Is abortion murder? It's all relative.

From that conclusion, right and wrong do not exist, and have no meaning. Relative morality leads to morality's nonexistence. You could say it exists as public decision, but then that just makes it meaningless opinion, on the same level of value as saying "my favorite color is blue.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 9:00:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 8:43:39 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 6:28:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 6:00:31 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Morality is drastically important in this issue. With your reasoning, there is no right and wrong. Morality would be simply opinion. Murder and such would not be "right" or "wrong". You could then never complain about what people do. There is no free will anyway from your point of view.

Even if I was a theist, I would believe that morality is subjective. I do not believe that it is possible to demonstrate that morality is objective. It is merely an intuitive conclusion. Anyway, a lack of objective morality does not imply that there will be a lack of morality.

But right and wrong does exist. It is wrong to murder, and society works and judges accordingly. The government makes laws by what is the "right" law to make and what is the "wrong" law to make. Doing what "ought" to happen is how government works. We couldn't have these things if abiogenesis was true.

It exists because we have decreed it such for the benefit of society. Murder is not a good example because that word already has the moral implications built it, as it is defined as "unlawful" killing. I fail to see how abiogenesis would be incompatible with morality.

The topic of free will and morality is a philosophical issue, so I would recommend starting another topic about these things in the appropriate forum.

You could create your own moral code, but it would be a meaningless opinion. Murder is defined a "unlawful" killing. But laws have to do with what "should" and "shouldn't" be, laws deal with what is moral. There is no meaningful definition of law if abiogenesis is true, there would only be opinion. Morality would be meaningless. Saying murder is wrong would be only an opinion, which has no real value. It says it in the definition that it is wrong, but right and wrong only make since and have value if abiogenesis is false. The concept of murder, in a way, disproves abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis leads to the conclusion that morality, rationality, and freedom does not exist. But in this argument we use standards of right and wrong, we use reasoning, and we have the ability to freely choose what we see as the best conclusion from our discussion. This discussion we are having right now proves that abiogenesis is false.

Humans have differing preferences, opinions and values. If a group of humans live together in a civilized group, it is likely that some will display behavior and values (or lack thereof) that go against the values of the rest of the group. In order to maintain the best means of living and promote the cohesiveness, and therefore survival, of the group, they create a standard of living based upon the strongest values of the group. Simply, our laws are a result of this agreement. It is rooted in individual opinions and values. You will be hard-pressed to find two people who agree on every moral point, so how could it be determined which set of values is objectively correct, if such as thing exists?

As you used as an example, we probably have different favorite colors. Subjective. We also likely have differing opinions about when killing is right and wrong in a given scenario. Subjective. Some people will have NO problem will killing in ANY context, which is their opinion which reflects their values. Do you have any means of actually determining if objective morality exists, aside from intuitive reasoning?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 9:10:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 9:00:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 8:43:39 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/10/2015 6:28:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2015 6:00:31 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Morality is drastically important in this issue. With your reasoning, there is no right and wrong. Morality would be simply opinion. Murder and such would not be "right" or "wrong". You could then never complain about what people do. There is no free will anyway from your point of view.

Even if I was a theist, I would believe that morality is subjective. I do not believe that it is possible to demonstrate that morality is objective. It is merely an intuitive conclusion. Anyway, a lack of objective morality does not imply that there will be a lack of morality.

But right and wrong does exist. It is wrong to murder, and society works and judges accordingly. The government makes laws by what is the "right" law to make and what is the "wrong" law to make. Doing what "ought" to happen is how government works. We couldn't have these things if abiogenesis was true.

It exists because we have decreed it such for the benefit of society. Murder is not a good example because that word already has the moral implications built it, as it is defined as "unlawful" killing. I fail to see how abiogenesis would be incompatible with morality.

The topic of free will and morality is a philosophical issue, so I would recommend starting another topic about these things in the appropriate forum.

You could create your own moral code, but it would be a meaningless opinion. Murder is defined a "unlawful" killing. But laws have to do with what "should" and "shouldn't" be, laws deal with what is moral. There is no meaningful definition of law if abiogenesis is true, there would only be opinion. Morality would be meaningless. Saying murder is wrong would be only an opinion, which has no real value. It says it in the definition that it is wrong, but right and wrong only make since and have value if abiogenesis is false. The concept of murder, in a way, disproves abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis leads to the conclusion that morality, rationality, and freedom does not exist. But in this argument we use standards of right and wrong, we use reasoning, and we have the ability to freely choose what we see as the best conclusion from our discussion. This discussion we are having right now proves that abiogenesis is false.

Humans have differing preferences, opinions and values. If a group of humans live together in a civilized group, it is likely that some will display behavior and values (or lack thereof) that go against the values of the rest of the group. In order to maintain the best means of living and promote the cohesiveness, and therefore survival, of the group, they create a standard of living based upon the strongest values of the group. Simply, our laws are a result of this agreement. It is rooted in individual opinions and values. You will be hard-pressed to find two people who agree on every moral point, so how could it be determined which set of values is objectively correct, if such as thing exists?

As you used as an example, we probably have different favorite colors. Subjective. We also likely have differing opinions about when killing is right and wrong in a given scenario. Subjective. Some people will have NO problem will killing in ANY context, which is their opinion which reflects their values. Do you have any means of actually determining if objective morality exists, aside from intuitive reasoning?

Exactly my point. People cannot be the basis of morality. If people say "this is right and this isn't" and make that their moral basis, it is all meaningless. People make their own "morality", but it is simply opinion. That is why abiogenesis is false. Morality is meaningless if it is true. Morality cannot be derived from simple human opinion.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 10:26:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We also likely have differing opinions about when killing is right and wrong in a given scenario. Subjective.

This error crops up time after time. Yes, people can have different opinions about whether killing is right or wrong. But they can also have different opinions on - for example - whether the world is flat or a sphere. But that doesn't mean the shape of the world is a matter of opinion.

There is an objective fact about the shape of the world which flat earthers are are mistaken about. Disagreement is not a proof that morality is purely a matter of subjective opinion any more than disagreement would make the shape of the earth a matter of opinion. It may well be that there is no such thing as objective morality, but disagreement is not a disproof of it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 10:35:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False, there is no evidence for it.

That is of course by evidence we mean actual observation or traces of such an event.

And if we are of the mind set that, if there is no evidence for something then it is default position to assume it is false.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:12:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False. It's a shame otherwise smart people would believe in such nonsense.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:23:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 10:35:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False, there is no evidence for it.

That is of course by evidence we mean actual observation or traces of such an event.

And if we are of the mind set that, if there is no evidence for something then it is default position to assume it is false.

Oh, the irony. Lol.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:26:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 10:35:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False, there is no evidence for it.

False. https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is of course by evidence we mean actual observation or traces of such an event.

The above experiment is observable. Unless you're going to argue that 'evidence' means we have to have a time machine.

And if we are of the mind set that, if there is no evidence for something then it is default position to assume it is false.

If only you applied this level of critical thinking to your own beliefs.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:51:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 12:11:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/9/2015 12:33:01 PM, Sooner wrote:
Is Abiogenesis true or false?

False

If it was true, then free will would not exist. Everything would be the result of inevitable, blind chemistry.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.

Rationality would not exist because it presupposes free will, and presupposes that our thoughts are not the result of random processes.

Rationality does not presuppose free will. Rationality is also subjective (especially when you add morals/personal values into the mix. If anything free will is what allows humans to defy rationality. If we were purely rational creatures we'd always do the rational thing; does that sound like free will? Do people choose to be irrational?

Morality would also cease to be objective. With people arising from chemical processes, morality would be nothing more then made up ideas.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. By the way, morality is subjective. Ever wonder why people disagree on moral issues? Yea, that's why.

Morality would then be subjective. With morality being subjective, right and wrong lose meaning, and are nothing more then the result of chemicals. Saying "blue is my favorite color" and "killing is wrong" would be of the same meaningless value.

I've heard this argument so many times before and it's always the same problem; you talk about "meaning" as if it's necessary that some outside force affirms said meaning. We give our own lives meaning. Just because you are the product of neuro-chemical reactions doesn't mean our actions are "meaningless". We effect each other, what ever endorphins or chemical motivators are causing me to type this message to you will cause a chemical reaction in you as you read this. Neither of us have a choice, and if you do think that you can somehow control how you react that in itself is a chemical reaction driving your thought process.

When you try to devalue our existence because were "just the result of chemicals" you really under value the extreme complexity of chemistry. Hell it's obvious complexity is what has created such a diversity of species and among individuals.