Comments on: Scientist-Politician-Atheist Offers Own Money For Origin of Life Prize

By: Marian

Marian — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:34:16 +0000

This all pre-supposes that the mind of Man is CAPABLE of understanding the origin of life. Such arrogance. The fact that Man, of all the creatures on Earth, understands all that he does (understand), is no reason to suppose that he is capable of understanding all that there is. An ant understands all that it does (understand), but it doesn’t understand all that Man understands. There may be minds out there that understand more than we do. The limits of understanding may not be the limits of Man’s mind to understand. I repeat: such arrogance. Alright, the word ‘understand’ has lost all meaning for me now through repetition. Haha.

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:28 +0000

Amazing how such an above-board challenge instantly evokes defense of religious beliefs. What’s the problem with this picture? IF there is a deity, do any of you honestly believe (honestly, now) that such an inquiry would in any way diminish such a deity? I say emphatically and logically “NO.”

It isn’t a deity that is being threatened here, but BELIEF systems — and that explains the defensive outpouring here. “Every belief is just an opinion, except mine. Mine is THE TRUTH.”

We need to get over ourselves and realize open eyes does not equate to catastrophe.

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:27:09 +0000

Pete: The fact that I’m unable to prove the non-existence of a fantasy does not mean I’m not allowed to find said fantasy a bit bizarre. If someone told me there were little leprechauns living in my apartment, but their sophisticated cloaking technology prevented me from observing them… well, my first thought wouldn’t be ‘wow, that might be a possibility’, my first thought would be ‘are you on medication and if not, why not?’.

England was a pagan country long before it was a Christian country. If those Gods could be put aside for a new religion, then why can’t the new God be put aside for the more rational option of no religion? Merely because it’s become a tradition? That doesn’t seem like a very solid basis for a belief system.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:33:27 +0000

I’m amazed the “who created God” is still an argument. If he existed outside of spacetime then there is no notion of “beginning” “middle” or “end” – with the invention of time came these things.

Also, as it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, where has the idea that “God is ridiculous” come from?
As far as I know, England has been a Christian/Catholic country for hundred of years. So why was God ever rejected? Clearly, even though science has discovered evolution, there is still the question of the origin of life, which has not yet been completely answered. What’s so wrong with the idea of God that we must laugh at people who believe?

- I think the premise “we don’t know who did it / we must have come from somewhere” followed by the pretty huge leap to any specific one deity having a unique claim to be the creator is the issue. “God did it” has been a fall back of the church since it’s inception, science has had to battle with this one for years. – P

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:15:46 +0000

Disclaimer, the following is all pseudo-science but also my own preferred fantasy. What aspects of reality are you? In nothing there is spontaneous creation, nothing has no rules and unlimited possibilities, and then, us a fraction of everything that is like balls on a snooker table, or us a window, the circuitry, the memory, “window” of consciousness. An author Pirsig of Lila once put it, to him large complicated structures of atoms expressing consciousness would suggest the atoms themselves in part express consciousness. Similarly with Buddhism there is not a single independent thing. Clearly we draw boarders, it makes evolutionary sense, we distinguish sounds, smells, e.t.c. but is life striving to exist from non-existence or exist from less existence?
Oh and good luck to the scientists

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 19:58:28 +0000

suprmn06: Transgenderism is actually caused by the development of a brain of one gender in a body of the opposite sex. It’s a foetal development issue, not a reincarnation issue.

I have a few phobias, and I know the origins of all of them. None of those lie in past lives.
My fear of heights started when I was visiting an old windmill with my parents at age 9, and it started to turn while we were at the top (you weren’t allowed in while it was turning). I was scared, I felt trapped and I couldn’t easily get out because we were up high. Voila, from then on I was afraid of heights.
My needlephobia started when I had surgery at 14, and the IV needle hurt a lot.
My germophobia started when a cartoon character had the measles when I was 4.

All explicable, and none hail from reincarnation.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:49:13 +0000

John:

Your first comment is an ad hominem: you are using a personal attack as a reason to reject an argument. It’s worse than that though as you are attacking a straw man. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone claim that it’s not possible for one form of life to create another one. That never resolves the issue of how life as a whole began though, because of the infinite regress point mention by Flapjack, sooner or later you need to either have life beginning through natural processes or some kind of supernatural cause. Looking for a supernatural cause is almost self defeating by definition, science using methodological naturalism is the only method of proven value for discovering more about reality (though of course the arts have their vital role to play in examining human experience).

By: Flapjack

Flapjack — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:21:01 +0000

The problem with invoking God as a first cause for the universe is the well trodden philosophical problem of infinite regress. I know back when I was a believer I was simply fobbed off with that masterstroke of circular logic “God created himself”, but if you’re asserting that something can’t derive from nothing then God himself is hamstrung by that same problem. How does an entity who doesn’t exist one minute call himself into being the next and with what? And if he in turn was created, who created his creator etc.
He’s not the solution to the conundrum, he just shifts the problem one step further back in time. And that’s always assuming you can settle on which god ‘dunnit’. At some stage anything you propose will be counter-intuitive.

By: suprmn06

suprmn06 — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:02:12 +0000

Tell him that these bodies were created in a lab to serve as a prison. If he doesn’t believe, tell him to go towards that white lite(Its a trap) & when he is sent back here, he’ll believe then. Need an example? When a person says they feel like a man trapped in a womans body? It’s because they use to be a woman, and now there a man. If you treat questions with a little common sense, everything can be figured out. People that have severe phobias, such as a fear of heights, probably either died from a fall or were severly injured from one. Common sense people. Whoever is in charge, is just technologically more advanced than we are, thats all.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:25:19 +0000

I believe in God, but that’s not why I think this is a waste of money.
I thought that scientists had already proved that life can originate through physical and chemical processes alone, it just is really really rare/unlikely? Or at least, that is the best theory science currently has.

I’d be delighted if these experiments led to a huge hole in the theory which could only be filled with a creator, but I just don’t think that’ll happen.

I think life could arise on it’s own, yet it’s more logical and likely that it’s been made by a creator (my opinion, please don’t hate if you disagree).

Either way, what happens next will be interesting.