Proof there is no god.

[Agent Orange]

A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for God.

A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins' foundation says that the theory has put God "on the ropes" and has "terrified" Christians.

It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.

The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.

But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable event if the conditions are correct.

"You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant," England said.

Paul Rosenberg, writing this week on Richard Dawkins' site, said that the theory could make things "a whole lot worse for creationists".

As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers. But England's theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html

[armaghniac]

"You start with a random clump of atoms,

Anyone see a problem here?

[J70]

Even if this leads somewhere,  how could it "prove" there is no god?

Material evidence is irrelevant to something supernatural. And even if believers were to accept that this would be latest "accomplishment" to be taken away from gods, they'd merely move the goalposts back a bit, to the creation of the universe or whatever.

[J70]

"You start with a random clump of atoms,

Anyone see a problem here?

With what?
The thread title or the random clump of atoms?

[CSC]

Where did the ramdom clump of atoms come from??

[LCohen]

There might well be something in this but it will not amount to "proof that god does not exist".

Not that means that there is any reason to conclude that god does exist or that "his" existence and non-existence are equally likely

[Agent Orange]

Even if this leads somewhere,  how could it "prove" there is no god?

Why should proof be needed that something doesn't exist?

What should be asked for is proof, or even substantial evidence of existence, but don't hold your breath.

[deiseach]

Yeah, I'm sure the kind of people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and that homo sapiens co-existed with dinosaurs are going to suffer an existential crisis over this.

[Agent Orange]

Yeah, I'm sure the kind of people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and that homo sapiens co-existed with dinosaurs are going to suffer an existential crisis over this.

You obviously aren't a member of mumsnet. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/2301982-Im-getting-sick-and-tired-of-dinosaurs-being-forced-on-our-children

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/

[deiseach]

Yeah, I'm sure the kind of people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and that homo sapiens co-existed with dinosaurs are going to suffer an existential crisis over this.

You obviously aren't a member of mumsnet. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/2301982-Im-getting-sick-and-tired-of-dinosaurs-being-forced-on-our-children

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonexistingdinosaur/

Um, no. I'm not.

[laoislad]

Got as far as when you mention Richard Dawkins then stopped reading.

[muppet]

That is brilliant. 

"Nothing about dinosaurs is suitable for children, from their total lack of family values through to their non-existence from any serious scientific point of view.

Recently my sister foolishly gave my two youngest some dinosaurs toys for Christmas. After telling her to get out of my house I burnt the dinosaurs. My children were delighted because they know that dinosaurs are evil. I am fortunate that my family has been very supportive, and has disowned my children's former aunt."

[Agent Orange]

That is brilliant. 

"Nothing about dinosaurs is suitable for children, from their total lack of family values through to their non-existence from any serious scientific point of view.

Recently my sister foolishly gave my two youngest some dinosaurs toys for Christmas. After telling her to get out of my house I burnt the dinosaurs. My children were delighted because they know that dinosaurs are evil. I am fortunate that my family has been very supportive, and has disowned my children's former aunt."

[armaghniac]

[Orior]

"You start with a random clump of atoms,

Anyone see a problem here?

You know Armaghniac, for an Armagh man, you're actually and surprisingly quite clever.

You know Agent Orange, for an Armagh man, you're... well... lets see if you can answer Armaghniac.