Skip to main content

Abiogenesis and the atheist's faith

Taken from this forum.

Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence.

Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help.
Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives.

With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of God, the Flying Spagettii Monster (FSM), is that we know what the raw chemicals are capable of doing (or NOT doing, in this case) and we know that the overall reactions produce results that go in the wrong direction (away from life). All the origin of life experiments are failures at providing anything that actually works... but since the atheists "knows" that the materialistic universe is all that exists, he invokes his own mantra about unknown conditions and processes and convinces others that THIS is the only logical and scientific response in spite of the resulting facts.

To put it bluntly, naturalistic scientists do not really have a clue how life arose. They have a bunch of "just so" stories and THAT is ALL! Their experiments are absolute dead ends. But, hopefully, "someday" (they believe) scientists may eventually find those "unknown processes" which will allow matter to self-organize into the bio-chemical equivalent of a von Neumann machine (named for mathematician and founder of cybernetics, John von Neumann (1903-1957).

The “simple” cell remains a staggering example of the stupendous complexity required for even the simplest bio-chemical “von Neumann” self-repairing, self-reproducing, metabolizing machine to exist. And in an environment where malfunctions equal death, is it really probable that such “mechanisms” could evolve by natural processes? Not likely. In fact, it is highly unlikely that many of the sub-cellular molecular machines found within a single cell could evolve by natural processes.

Theists believe that the God that exists has revealed himself. Is there faith involved? Absolutely! The question isn’t whether or not faith is involved (we ALL have faith in things we can’t demonstrate to be true empirically) but whether or not that faith is reasonable. The problem then becomes defining what is reasonable. Evidence, it seems, is not regarded as evidence until it is first PERCIEVED to actually be evidence. It was not too long ago when evidence that stones were falling from the sky was denounced as impossible because everyone just “knew” that stones could not fall from the sky. Today we call these stones meteorites. The evidence was there but the belief paradigm at that time would not accept it. In other words, we all filter out what the evidence really is based on our world-view or basic belief paradigm. We are all prejudiced. So, which bias is the best bias to be biased with? I believe the theistic bias is a very good bias...

Keep reading.


Jime said…
Hi Ardegas,

Abiogenesis is a great problem for naturalism/materialism. This one of the aspects of atheism that reveals the faith of these guys, because they must pose any kind of absurd (and non-proven) "explanations" to account for it.

Ardegas, do you know the "Atheism Analyzed's blog"? It's the best critical blog on atheism that I've ever read:

The author is a former 40 years atheist. He's also the author of the "atheism analized" website, that offers his very good anti-atheism free online e-books:

I think non-materialist atheists are more open minded, and less dogmatic. An example is Michael Roll, an atheist who accept the scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness after death:

By the way, the blog "Maverick philosopher" (that you have as a link at right) isn't an atheist blog; in fact, the author is theist.


Popular posts from this blog

The Santa Claus Argument

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence".

"But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist".

"I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?”

Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character.

But what is the basis of this idea?

It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake.

Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a human c…

The Irrational Atheist

This is good news.

The book "The Irrational Atheist" is now available online for free.

Check this link:

The Irrational Atheist

“In The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day plays the card that the atheists consider their trump—reason—against them in a devastating and highly entertaining manner. With clarity and wit, he presents a wealth of evidence to demolish the arguments put forward by the leading ‘brights’ of the day.”
—Chad Elder, Fraters Libertas