DavidWahl

I agree. I've found that misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and manipulation of statistical data are among the methods they often resort to, to support their biased arguments and make weak justifications. It is unlikely to convince them but by erecting a more solid set of arguments based on evidence, I'm expecting it would prevent them from developing complex, obscure and yet nonetheless wrong arguments in the future and reinforce them to take time to understand what is written before they could point out what is wrong but, of course, only if they don't want to embarrass themselves which is also very unlikely. When you don't make good, simple and complete arguments, they'd find ways to exploit them for which they haven't really understood and later they repeat their premises to argue with someone else because they haven't lost their faith in them since they don't think you have been able to completely refute them.

Show me an argument I made that suggest oxygen (O2) as a necessity for the emergence of life, please do not confuse it with the elemental oxygen that also exist in other compounds like water. Your preconceived notions are not mine. Do you think the stars made a special exception for the production of elemental oxygen? There was no oxygen at all, I'm dead. Thank you for expressing your unnecessary viewpoints, I mean if you want to understand it that way. The word 'equilibrium' is not exclusively used to convey only the concept of thermodynamical equilibrium. I hope that is clear. I'm sorry, please offer me clarification. What is not according to wikipedia? Do not confuse more complex with more advance. Even though they are related, these two are separate things. Although, complexity is not inherently the "goal" of evolution, natural selection favors traits that increase an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. Over generations, organisms accumulate beneficial adaptations. Some of these adaptations may lead to greater complexity if they provide a survival advantage. Since natural selection preserves variations that confer advantages and passes it down through generations, complexity arises from the accumulation of small, incremental changes over millions or billions of years. You are butchering my arguments in every single way without understanding the essence of them even a little bit. I've made sure that my arguments are pretty much flawless. I would highly recommend you to think twice before you write because I don't think you are making any progress as far as I'm concerned.

To be honest, I don't know but I believe that we don't know all the laws of physics or at least not in their most general form. I dream of the day we would finally discover the physical laws that are so fundamental that they could explain even the workings of a blackhole. I've priorised physics because the laws of physics are more fundamental than that of other sciences, duh. In fact, these laws form the foundational framework upon which all other sciences are built. Various conditions like the presence of liquid H2O, the location of planet earth in the habitable zone of the solar system, the formation of a protective layer of atmosphere, the presence of a magnetic field, the availability of essential resources and chemical diversity and so on. Metabolism is key. Early life didn't need oxygen but eventually life found an ingenious way to utilize oxygen for metabolism through photosynthesis. Evolution could be anything like the evolution of anime, technology, fashion and more. In scientific literature, Darwinian evolution refers to the process of biological change in populations of organisms over generations through the variation, inheritance and natural selection. Do not confuse it with Darwin's Original Theory of Evolution which is presented in his book On the Origin of Species. Yes, all it means is that our universe has reached to a stage where the extreme and chaotic conditions of its early moments have settled into more stable and predictable patterns. The Early universe was extremely hot, dense, and dominated by high-energy radiation and particles in constant interaction. Subsequently, with sufficient amount of time, the universe has expanded and cooled significantly, reducing the intensity of harmful radiation. This cooling allowed matter to condense into atoms and form stable structures like galaxies, solar systems and even chemical elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. It's not an absolute state but it's relative to the turbulent conditions of our early universe which is why now is much better for a phenomenon such as life to occur.

Well, good heavens I didn't put those two statements together for a reason and I've carefully framed them to prevent such logical fallacies. The first statement is an observation grounded in scientific evidence while the second statement is merely a reflection of the anthropic principle. Note that it does not explain why life emerged but shows that its emergence is compatible with both Earth's conditions and probabilistic reasoning. This way, I'm not assuming life exists to prove Earth's conditions facilitated it but instead highlighting how Earth's conditions align with the scientific understanding of life’s requirements for it to flourish into existence.

You may have heard the argument that theists often make about the necessity of an intelligent designer for the existence of life. The argument goes as: "It's impossible for something too complex like life to have occurred at random without an intelligent designer." Arguments like this or variations of the same that often leave us feeling unsatisfied or inept to provide concrete answers with proper reasoning. Below I have devised or attempted to make a sequence of logical arguments based on pre-established knowledge and successful theories in science to tackle this common theistic argument of the impossibility or pure coincidence of life and that its existence does not necessitate supernatural explanations but rather arises from natural processes under specific conditions. My set of arguments is as follow: 1) Life, despite its complexity, can be understood as a mechanism that is completely possible and operates entirely within the known laws of physics. 2) Following the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of extreme instability, characterized by high levels of radiation and chaotic conditions. Over billions of years, however, the Universe now has approached a state of equilibrium. This shift has created regions with conditions conducive to the emergence and sustenance of life, such as lower radiation levels and the presence of essential chemical elements. 3) Given the vast number (billions) of galaxies, stars, and planetary systems within the observable Universe, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a subset of planets possesses resources and conditions favorable for the development and sustenance of life. 4) Among the multitude of planets, one of them, that we are very familiar with, happens to meet all of those precise requirements and luckily underwent through very specific circumstances through which life came into existence. Earth's history demonstrates a series of highly specific and contingent events that facilitated the origin of life. 5) A pertinent question arises: is it merely coincidental that the most suitable environment for life to emerge and thrive happens to be the same environment we inhabit? This coincidence, though seemingly extraordinary, is a reflection of the conditions under which observers, such as ourselves, can arise to question it. 6) While the probability of life emerging under such specific circumstances may be exceedingly low, it does not imply impossibility. Our very existence serves as empirical evidence that such an event, however improbable, has occurred. Thus, the realization of this "low-probability event" is not a contradiction but an affirmation of the principle that possibility, however rare, can manifest given sufficient opportunities. 7) Once life emerged, its ability to undergo Darwinian evolution became a fundamental mechanism driving its complexity. Through natural selection, genetic variation, and adaptation, living organisms gradually evolved to exploit diverse environments and develop increasingly intricate structures and behaviors. This process of evolution not only explains the diversity of life on Earth but also underscores why life has transitioned from simple molecular beginnings to the complex ecosystems and intelligent beings observed today. This is the best that I could do as of currently and I have convinced myself that it's enough to convince others too. However I believe it does need slight improvements.

I don't think there's any problem to interpret "proving" as "evidence that suggests the certainty or high possibility of " when we specifically talk about science. Interesting. Then at that point I think you can safely call me a blatant ignorant but only if that ever happens to begin with. I see that your stance is more reasonable here but nothing prevents me from having a belief of my choice in the absence of evidence (or I should say inexistent) either, as long as I don't use those beliefs as facts in making rational arguments. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm not talking about the case when we assume those beliefs to be true before making our arguments, though I'm aware of this as well. Once more I'll restate it in a different way just for you. Trash in a scientific sense, not necessarily philosophical.

It's the same thing except this time you've blended two things together. We used information about a phenomenon in animals to suggest the same existing pattern to be in plants as well. In most cases, we cannot directly observe evolution which is why we use fossil records, genetics and even presently existing features like the curve beaks you mentioned, to prove it's relevance. These are footprints or aspects of reality that were previously not known to have connections with each other and they're all manifestations of Evolution. And yes, using this we can also forecast the future. What is even more worthless is the very notion of proving God's existence as a scientific endeavor. A wasteful attempt with a likely useless result which serves no practical purpose. There are much better things to invest our time on. Again, I'm an atheist not an agnostic. Anything that is both unfalsifiable and contains no scientific possibility is simply trash to me. Just by looking at the way how religions have turned out in this world, I'm sure if I were God I would never want to be proven to exist only to entertain such individuals and their beautiful beliefs.

You mean physical footprints or remnants. What I had in my mind when you said "predictions" was to forecast future events, I almost forgot that revealing the existence of something that was previously unknown is also a form of prediction. I still strictly believe that even if God exists, there's just no way we can ever prove the being's existence or even have a hint about its true nature. Whether it's mathematical equations, observational predictions, conceptual models or even pure reasoning. It's impossible and as good as wishful thinking.

I appreciate your honesty and formality. But I have to disagree with you about the nature of such an evidence. To be able to find evidence of God that allows us to make predictions, on what grounds? Offer me clarity, what kind of predictions? To foretell what God's next move will be? Science, especially the field of physics, is heavily relied on mathematics to make predictions (even the fundamental laws are encoded as mathematical equations) and the idea to think we can find an equation that not only proves God but also make predictions is not only interesting but extremely absurd to me. Please enlighten me.

Now you want a wikipedia page on that too?

I believe you are aware of the fact that when we use "we", it usually conveys in general terms, obviously exceptions are going to be there as well but that still doesn't in any way prevent me from speaking on behalf of the majority. I know my community very well. Thanks for the unneeded reminder tho.

As atheists, we intentionally demand evidence to provoke a sense of rationality in the minds of people with religious dogmatism, in a way to shut them up, whereas we're also greatly aware that no such evidence can be provided. These people desperately want to validate the truth of their beliefs and the annoying part is they do this by unnecessarily filling the gaps of understanding in science by a mysterious entity and its so-miracles. The most elegant and well-known method that they could come up with. Even in the absence of knowledge, they are greatly confident and deluded in their idea of God that they have the divine arrogance to challenge an actually knowledgeable individual; and so by questioning and demanding evidence, we are simply helping them cultivate a sense of humility while also make them realise that they are as clueless as we are when it comes to proving the existence of God. It's more of a tactic than a serious request. Theists will claim various sorts of characteristics about God's true nature, as if they've encountered or observed God themselves which thus gives them the right to make assumptions about God's nature. Let's assume a being like God does exist, how are you so sure that God is non-physical in nature? On what concrete basis did you come to that understanding? Did God have a personal chat with you and told you that?

I knew that just throwing the term in as if it is of no importance is going to be catastrophic. I don't necessarily agree that the phrase itself is contradictory in nature. I should have been more specific in terms of how I defined the phrase. A phenomenological illusion refers to a type of experience where there is a discrepancy between how things appear in our consciousness and how they actually are in reality, e. g., mirage, hallucinations etc. It recognizes the reality of the subjective experience of the illusion. In essence, a phenomenological illusion is an experience where what appears in consciousness does not align with external reality, but the experience itself is undeniably real to the subject. The only controversial thing about my statement is the claim that consciousness itself is a phenomenological illusion because the very concept of an illusion presupposes a conscious experiencer. It does presents a paradox that challenges the coherence of the notion itself. Phenomenology, with its emphasis on the reality of subjective experience, generally rejects the idea that consciousness could be an illusion and treats consciousness as if it objectively exists.

I agree. I had a somewhat similar opinion about consciousness. I think it's a "phenomenological illusion", it feels real by human experience but it could or could not be an objective thing at all. We're all trying so hard to come up with a proper definition of consciousness which can be both scientific and universally agreed upon. Right now there's no such definition and the current philosophical definition is the "awareness of one's existence". And if consciousness does exists, more questions can be asked like: What are the common/fundamental characteristics/components of all conscious beings? With the rise of AI, how can you tell the difference between a system that is actually conscious and a system that appears/pretends to be conscious?