Wrong. The 'god of the gaps' argument boils down to 'there is no current explanation, so godditit'. What we want is a definite prediction of a future observation that is not explained by the current physical theory and *is* explained by the existence of a creator. That is how we would show the existence of anything else in science, from the Higg's boson, to supersymmetric matter, to a black hole.<quoted text>
So you are telling me, that looking for evidence of a god, entails finding a pattern that can only be explained by "positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.". <snip>
As an atheist, you should know how ridiculous it is when theists cannot explain things and conclude "God done it!", and yet that is the same criterion you are using when discussing a god.
I frst look at what life is: a collection of intertwined chemical reactions. I then look at what the basic bulding blocks for those reactions are. Then I consider whether those building blocks are available in the universe. Then I see if there are plausible mechanisms for going from the chemicals and reactions we know occur to the chemicals and reactions required for life."I am an atheist, and I very rarely weigh the odds against the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, I don't know anybody who does." - Well this is a first for me. So tell me, how do you approach abiogenesis?
I would argue slightly differently. The basic building blocks for life are fairly common in the universe: amino acids, sugars, etc. The main question is what the exact environment is that leads to the development of life. At this stage we do not know that piece of the puzzle. But we do know that life developeed very early on this planet.All atheists that I know, argue the odds. They argue that the chances of life arising from non life in any particular place are slim, but considering the vastness of the universe, the billions of stars and solar systems, it is hence theoretically possible that at least at some location, life would arise in this way. That is the common atheist argument.
No, I believe it arose through the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry. That the appropriate precursors were her eis a matter of chance, but not the development from those precursors.Atheists don't believe that every single event occurs through chance, but they do believe that life arouse on this particular planet as a result of chance.
We do not know what the conditions are for the development of life, so it is impossible to determine the probabilities involved. At this point, the evidence is that it is actually fairly easy to produce life (given how fast it happened on earth), so I would actually *guess* that it is common for bacterial life to exist in other locations.Even though the laws of physics exist throughout this universe, it is at this particular solar system that the laws resulted in creating a planet suitable for life (as far as we know at this point). And even when the chances of life arising from a particular pool are slim, there were many pools, hence increasing the odds in life's favour. Is that not the general atheist argument? Is that not the general atheist belief?
Right, once we have life, we have evolution. it isn't evolution until we have life. Evolution is supported by the evidence even if life got started by divine intervention.Renowned atheist, Carl Sagan believed that somehow out of the various lifeless complex molecules, at least one molecule would've begun the process of replication, and thereafter evolved from then on. Is that not basically what you believe? You may state abiogenesis as the cause and technically that would be correct, but its evolution right from then on.
Again, a single molecule will not be alive; it is a system of interacting molecules that maintains homeostasis and can replicate in some environment that is alive.