Can we admit that agnosticism is the logical way of thinking?

I'm not understanding your reply. Can you explain a little further?

 

That is not logical. Logic and "what is right" are rarely aligned.

 

I believe I'll have another drink ...

 

So then, wouldn't that apply to the same principle of "singularity" or "The first self replicating molecule"?

 

We have direct contact with singularity and the first self-replicating molecule? I would like to see this evidence.

 

Agnosticism is the fearful or lazy refusal to accept logic.

 

The reality is that life has never been produced without life. There have been many trials that tried to stimulate the creation of life without life. All have failed. During the expansion of the universe; it was theorized that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light; outside the natural laws. Again... Another non-reality theory.

 

Not quite, it requires ignoring too much evidence although "Incomplete" as Kurt Gödel would say. Gödel, perhaps the foremost logician of the last century, pointed out (I'll shorten the paper a whole bunch) that it takes more
faith to believe in the random creation of life without the creator than it does to believe in the creator. He used considerable mathematics to make the point but I won't trouble you with that here.
Both Gödel and Einstein were Pantheist

I posted this on a different forum just a couple days ago about another likely Pantheist.

My take on Thomas Jefferson is that he was not a religious man in the sense of belonging to any church of the time he lived. If his time had been a bit later he may have considered himself a Pantheist, but almost for certainly not and atheist.

The wording he used in the Declaration of Independence makes it one of the greatest
documents of all time, a prescription for freedom for any man willing to accept the idea
that our rights do indeed come from our creator. There is no need to discuss your rights with men because granting of rights is above the pay grade of any man no matter how
powerful, charismatic or benevolent. It does not require you to belong to any church or religion to accept this truth.

The Constitution was then created (after a bit of fuss) to protect those rights the creator endowed upon the people who must work daily, to keep this independence from
being erroded by charlatans and Pipe Pipers that come often with a less than truth.

I think this means our creator gave us our rights but he is not going to see you keep them, that's our job.

It seems to me to be completely logical to accept the Judeo-Christian philosophy of living while
taking the Pantheism view of the creator, not quite so hands on and personal, but still not a
no rules, anything goes. I think that may have been the intent of the majority of those that created this country.

 

WOW good job Marzy! Repp'd

 

Spot on Denny. They haven't failed! They just haven't succeeded. Truth.

 

How convenient. So because you can't observe, it's truth because we just don't have the technology to observe it?

 

Pardon me, but I do not know of anyone that has succeeded in creating life without starting with life. Is that truth? They have not failed, but have not succeeded either. I Think that is true.

 

Once again, you want to debate, but only with your definitions. Who cares if the majority of atheists have a different definition of atheism, lets go ahead and use a Christians definition. As long as you play this game, the conversation will stagnate.

 

So we are very unlikely to ever see success on the life creation front? We won't make it that long. But then if someone did succeed they would pass the creator test
and screw up the whole debate.

Ah well it makes my head hurt, I think I will stick with Kurt, he's a pretty savvy guy.