Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

Life is more than the reactions that compose it. It is the ordered succession of these reactions, it is with the order and directions given to these reactions by biological molecules, which are themselves produced by directed reactions.This is quite easy to see. Take all the biological molecules that compose a living cell, and drop them all in a drop of water. All the reactions that happen inside a living cell will also happen there, yet you won't have life because it will all be random, and also because there will be just as much unwanted reactions. This is where you go wrong, there are specific points along the path that are by themselves unsurmontable. The problem of chirality, for example, is one of them. No, I'm saying that if we cannot see any path, and that after years of searching there are still no path, even worse the problem has only gotten bigger, then I only suggest that perhaps there is no path.

... And so the reactions being possible does not mean naturalistic abiogenesis is possible.This procedure of yours looks like fallacy of composition to me.Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids too. You'll have to explain more of this, if all of life had 50-50 distribution of chirality, does it not have the same effect then all left-handed (in regards to common ancestry) link to published paper ? I think me suggesting there are no paths is a far cry from affirming it to be true As in needed for it to be an argument from ignorance). This is logically consistent because I make an inductive usage to suggest this, not deductively proving it. From wiki:

What other options do you have ?? An illogical argument ? Bad phrase structure prevents me from understanding I think Yes the topic was that faith was the answer to cognitive dissonance. Stile, in response to my opinion on this, chose an example which we could discuss. The purpose was showing cognitive dissonance. I introduced a simple argument about abiogenesis that could maybe show cognitive dissonance in the atheistic worldview. In fact, it was this very argument that convinced Anthony Flew (maybe the Dawkins of the 70's) to become a Theist.But here is the fact, there is only really cognitive dissonance from my point of view, because I think the world around us shows evidence of God. Therefore, from my POV, holding an atheistic philosophy in spite of this evidence seems like cognitive dissonance.This is essentially the process that is behind the OP of claiming faith is the answer to the cognitive dissonance of christians. Yet, this is only from his point of view. This is because evidence does not speak for itself. Claiming so is a logical fallcy. Evidence is interpreted in a framework, and most of the times the same piece of evidence can be explained in multiple sometimes very different frameworks. This then gives the illusion of cognitive dissonance from the respective point of views, when really there is none.

But this is only a subjective view of the evidence by an atheist.A theist is a theist because he thinks the evidence points to that conclusion. This is a subjective intepretation of the evidence, and it would be illegitimate for him to conclude that the atheists refusal to face the evidence and continue in his naturalistic worldview reveals much more about human psychology. Of course not, God of the Gaps is based on what we do not know.The argument I presented is based on the knowledge of what we do know. The premise 'naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible' is supported by chemistry and so on.On the other hand, a God of the Gaps argument about the classic example of Lightning is very different. Such an argument would have to contain a premise somewhat like 'lightning cannot have a natural cause'. But such a premise, at the time it was done, had no supporting fact for the simple reason that they didn't even know what lightning even was. This is in stark contrast to life, which the more we know about it the more the original premise is confirmed.Anthony Flew was a the most vocal atheist of his time, he knew very well what a god of the gaps was philosophically. He recognized the fundamental difference between that and the argument of abiogenesis impossibility very well, this is why it was able to convince him.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Because it is not the point of the subject. I say I think such an impossible step does exist. I think it is pretty obvious that I would hold my position if this was not the case. Summary elimination ? The results of more then 50 years of research into naturalistic abiogenesis (ever since Miller) show it is more then reasonable to inductively conclude that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible. And once again, as I said, this conclusion is subjective to the everyone. But you cannot tag someone of having cognitive dissonance because he arrives at a different conclusion then you. And we come back to the very first point I made in this thread: that this was a false conception of faith. THe very greek origin of the word points of belief based on evidence.And not only that, but how can you expect to be 'certain' and 'sure' of something if the prerequirement is that you have absolutely no basis for this. You can't. And in fact the verse never talks about it having to be without evidential basis. In fact, this verse you cited, coupled with the greek origin of the word, gives a radically different view of faith then what you are wanting it to say.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

It's not about the time involved, but what was actually discover. One year would have done the same thing, if all these discoveries would have been made in that span.Imagine that in the research of quantum gravity, the more you researched through it, the bigger the problem grew. Even worse, the more it seemed to contradict other known and well-established theories. There would come a point where the idea would be abandoned.I think this point has been reached in naturalistic abiogenesis. But because it is the crucial founding block of an atheist worldview, it put it in different position then a quantum physics theory. (That, coupled with the fact that mathematical physics theories will more easily be identified as contradictory for example) And if such a display of knowledge was presented to you, would you then become a theist ?

I think we finally arrive at the point I wanted it to come to. I will try and make a thread about the impossibility of naturalistic abiogenesis.This may take some time though, as I want to make as much an airtight argument as possible, along the lines of what cavediver requested.