Abiogenisis

[Valjean]

You seem to have misunderstood what I said.

This means that you and people like you (people who rejects belief in God because God has no verifiable evidence) expect an invisible and undetectable God to have verifiable evidence, ie. to be able to be detectable. About the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns I expect some sort of evidence at least to be available.

I have no expectations for God, but without evidence, why would anyone believe in him? It's not rationale to believe in the undetectable.
Why would you need more evidence of unicorns than of God? The available evidence seems equal. Why would credence be different?

There is some sort of evidence for God so I check that out and make up my mind about that. And I don't use the fact that God and spirits are undetectable to reject any other evidence for God and spirits.

What evidence is there for God? There's widespread belief, there's tradition, but that's not evidence. Moreover, there have been widespread beliefs in many different Gods and incorporeal beings. Why reject them for the Abrahamic concept?

 

[Brian2]

Science, on the other hand, is entirely reliant on objective evidence. Magic is anathema to science.

Science is not entirely reliant on objective evidence. Some of it relies on educated guesses about what might have happened, and using the presumption of the naturalistic methodology.
Then we have science trying to say that what God has said He did, happened naturally. It sounds like magic to me.

It's religion that reports effect without mechanism, ie: magic.
At some point we have to accept, trust or have faith in some axioms -- in mathematics, for example. They work, they're productive, and they stand up to testing.
Critical thinking and logic is sound epistemic methodology. It, too, works, is productive, and stands up testing (challenges).

"Produced by chance?"
Lots of things are chance functions, potentialities, random, indeterminate, or unpredictable. It gets complicated: Chance versus Randomness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What did you have in mind? Did you have a question about something specific?

Everything happens by chance for atheists when I look at the big picture.

 

[Brian2]

Well that's certainly the reason creationists focus on abiogenesis so much. They're hoping like hell that scientists won't figure it out, so they can continue to use the gap in our knowledge as a justification for their beliefs in gods.

Seems rather risky to me. After all, if a gap in our knowledge = gods, then logically gaps being filled = no gods.

Giving life is what God has said that He did and if life is produced artificially then what it does is show what God meant when He said "Let the earth bring forth...............life forms."
But no, most gaps in our knowledge that have been said to have been the work of God are not things that God has said about "I did that". It is just stuff made up by men.
And really finding a natural mechanism for anything does not eliminate the need for God to have created things so they could work that way.
But creation is just another one of those gaps that God said that He did, just like giving life.

Go along with what? If it remains an unsolved mystery for my lifetime, that wouldn't surprise me. History shows that sometimes there are hundreds of years between major scientific advancements.

Go along with no answers indefinitely or until you die and leave the waiting to the next generation of atheist who do the same. But as it happens scientific answers are no needed for atheists when the believe is there that it had to have happened naturally because the alternative is unacceptable. And I can understand that even if I cannot understand rejecting evidence for God because it is not evidence that science can use. And I cannot understand wanting to study a spiritual book like the Bible and have the idea from the get go that the supernatural elements are not true.

Because I'm not aware of any empirical evidence for any sort of "spirit". I'm not even sure there's a consistent, meaningful definition for such a thing.

Well that is what I said. Just because science cannot detect spirit, does that mean that spirit does not exist?
If spirit exists and science cannot detect it then that does not mean that spirit does not exist.
So in science, spirit, God, the supernatural, are ignored because they cannot be detected for sure, but science does not deny their possible existence. It is just atheists/skeptics who do that.

 

[Valjean]

That’s about how I see it…

“The atheistic, evolutionary belief that life came into being from a nonliving entity sometime in the unobserved past is a faith-based position, certainly not a science-based one, because the law of biogenesis has never been overturned and disagreeing with a scientific law is by definition unscientific.

What does the belief that life came from non-life have to do with atheism?
What is this "law of biogenesis?" What do you mean by a "scientific law?"
There is evidence of chemical evolution, and there is no alternative explanation. The belief that life came magically from non-life is a religious belief, with no supporting evidence.

However, to support their worldview, atheistic evolutionists have to believe that this scientific law was once broken in the distant past and that life did in fact come from nonliving matter at some point.

Again, what's with the atheism? What about the theistic "evolutionists?" And how is any of this a worldview?

What scientific law was broken? Do you not believe in chemistry?
Creating life "from the dust of the Earth" is life from nonliving matter. Moreover, it's magic, inasmuch as no mechanism is ascribed. You're hoist on your own petard.

But that would mean that this law of science isn’t actually a law! Even a single exception to any scientific law renders it falsified.

What the heck is this "law of science" you keep citing? Please clarify.

To believe it must have happened—not just in spite of it never having been observed, but in actual contradiction to repeated experimentation that was directly and purposefully performed to test it—goes way beyond any kind of god-of-the-gaps-type argument. It is an “evolution did it no matter what” type of declaration. It is certainly not science. Evolution ex machina.”

Are you aware of the scientific evidence? Google. All the evidence supports it.
What evidence do you have? It's you who claim life from non-life. It's you who invoke magic.

What is this experimentation that was performed to test it? I think you're making that up. All the experiments I'm aware of have clarified the steps in the process.

“The famous atheistic champion of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, has discussed the origin of life saying,

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.

Did you hear it? We have no evidence, but we know evolution did it. Evolution of the gaps. He admits there’s a gaping hole in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, then he invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow (despite the lack of any evidence).”.

Stop it with the atheistic, already. Atheism has nothing to do with this.
Dawkins said we don't know what the first step was. All the rest is just your personal opinion -- and it's wrong. You've completely mischaracterized both abiogenesis and evolution.
Life from non-life clearly happened. What mechanism do you support? What is your evidence for it?

This is not about evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with origins. It applies only to changes in existing life. You seem to have no knowledge of the subject you're so opinionated about.

Once there was no life. Now there's life. What happened, in your opinion?

 

[Valjean]

Science is not entirely reliant on objective evidence. Some of it relies on educated guesses about what might have happened, and using the presumption of the naturalistic methodology.
Then we have science trying to say that what God has said He did, happened naturally. It sounds like magic to me.

Of course it uses imagination and guesswork, but that's just the beginning. The scientific method is then applied to test the guesses. The science is in the testing.
Science has nothing to say about God, and you have no evidence of what God said he did, or even that he exists.
It's Goddidit that's magic. We've never seen anything that was not natural; nothing that didn't occur through natural chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics aren't magic. Goddidit is.

Everything happens by chance for atheists when I look at the big picture.

What does atheism have to do with any of this? Atheists have no beliefs. No doctrine. No faith. No world view. No ideas about science or the origin of life. They just lack belief in God.
What does everything happens by chance mean? Everything happens by chemistry and physics. Not by chance.

 

[Valjean]

Giving life is what God has said that He did and if life is produced artificially then what it does is show what God meant when He said "Let the earth bring forth...............life forms."

What evidence do you have that God said this?

But no, most gaps in our knowledge that have been said to have been the work of God are not things that God has said about "I did that". It is just stuff made up by men.

Like what you claim God said?

And really finding a natural mechanism for anything does not eliminate the need for God to have created things so they could work that way.

Now you've given up on questioning abiogenesis or evolution, and retreated to the unevidenced claim that God was simply the one who originally set it all in motion.
Why do you say there's any need for a magical personage at all? Why do you think this?

But creation is just another one of those gaps that God said that He did, just like giving life.

Did you hear God say this?

Go along with no answers indefinitely or until you die and leave the waiting to the next generation of atheist who do the same. But as it happens scientific answers are no needed for atheists when the believe is there that it had to have happened naturally because the alternative is unacceptable.

It's not that it's unacceptable, it's that it's unevidenced. It's folklore; just one story in hundreds about gods and magical origins. Why do you believe this particular one?

And I can understand that even if I cannot understand rejecting evidence for God because it is not evidence that science can use.

It's not that science can't use it. It's that there is no evidence for God; no evidence supporting it and no reason to believe it true.

And I cannot understand wanting to study a spiritual book like the Bible and have the idea from the get go that the supernatural elements are not true.

"Supernatural" is always logically assumed to be untrue. It's always unsupported, has never been observed and has no proposed mechanism. It's an assertion of magic.
Curious people study all sorts of things without accepting their claims.

Well that is what I said. Just because science cannot detect spirit, does that mean that spirit does not exist?
If spirit exists and science cannot detect it then that does not mean that spirit does not exist.

It means spirit has the same likelihood of existing as any other undetectable thing: leprechauns, unicorns, transdimentional creator mice, &al.

So in science, spirit, God, the supernatural, are ignored because they cannot be detected for sure, but science does not deny their possible existence. It is just atheists/skeptics who do that.

No, the rational approach is to defer belief in things for which there is no evidence or reason to believe. Science and skeptics are not irrational. Theists are -- by definition.
Science does not deny the possibility of leprechauns or Cthulu, but do you believe in them; do you treat them as possibilities to be considered?

Atheists and skeptics do not deny the possibility of gods or spirits. They just defer belief, pending evidence.

 

[wellwisher]

Giving life is what God has said that He did and if life is produced artificially then what it does is show what God meant when He said "Let the earth bring forth...............life forms."
But no, most gaps in our knowledge that have been said to have been the work of God are not things that God has said about "I did that". It is just stuff made up by men.
And really finding a natural mechanism for anything does not eliminate the need for God to have created things so they could work that way.
But creation is just another one of those gaps that God said that He did, just like giving life.

Well that is what I said. Just because science cannot detect spirit, does that mean that spirit does not exist?
If spirit exists and science cannot detect it then that does not mean that spirit does not exist.
So in science, spirit, God, the supernatural, are ignored because they cannot be detected for sure, but science does not deny their possible existence. It is just atheists/skeptics who do that.

How does the fruit of probability, in terms of abiogenesis and evolution, conceptually differ from the fruit of God? If a bunch of chemicals were to somehow sequentially form into the very first cell precursors; implied by statistical abiogenesis and evolution, how does that conceptually differ from God doing it? How does the physics differ in terms of the two mechanisms?

Both theories use an indescribable nebulous variable, to fill in the blanks. What is the physics behind Lady Luck? Does the similarity make the fruit of statistical assumptions, a type of religion, since it works, vey similar to the way of God? Separation of church and state will require we defund it, unless it seeks religious exemptions.

If I go to a gambling casino, the odds of winning are based on the same statistical math, as evolution. How can I tell the difference in outcome, if I do not win, from God did it, or Lucky Luck did it? Is the physics different? Do we even know Lady Luck physics? Is there an experiment we can do to see which God (god) gives us the final result, since both involve some type of faith based black box hocus pocus? Maybe someone can explain why the odds of Lady Luck exist but the odds from another God is impossible? The only difference is Lady Luck is not named as a being, even though her output skills are that of a goddess. The used car salesman will say that oil puddle is not from this car, so he can sell the car that leaks oil. I see oil!

God's will is not human will. The will of Lady Luck is also not about human will. They both agree in that sense. In terms of how each system works, in gist, God's will is based on his long term view, where even if we lose, it can still be a blessing in disguise or not. We will know over time. Lady Luck is more based on short term situational, for each day or moment at the casino. Her whims can be prob or con and turn on a dime. This is one difference between these two mystery religions. Our universe may have variety in terms of stars but each follows similar principles. This is sort of a composite affect of the two.

What type of experiment can we run to tell the difference between these two faith based mystery religions, when neither are fully logical or predictable by logic? Both sort of use their own black boxes for the mystery of faith. Why does science prefer the religion of Lady Luck, to define evolution, seeing Lady luck is situational, and her whims can change second to second with no long term plan? Won't this make the final odds for all the steps needed for life, near impossible? Since God is looking longer term, his odds become better between steps; one step can load the next dice, allowing the near impossible for Lady Luck, to still be possible. Loaded dice make us win more often. Dice not loaded win less often.

The Bible says that humans were made in the image of God and not the image of Lady Luck. When we build a car, we don't use the blindfolded building technique, each time, like Lady Luck. We tend to load the dice with an assembly line, with the long term image of the perfect final car always in sight. If humans can do this, why is the goddess of science made so dumb? Does this have anything to do with the human ego? If we pick Lady Luck, we can do better than the gods and therefore we are like the gods? This might intoxicate the ego of science.

Why doesn't science have a problem with the Lady Luck religion still being in science? The tax payers need to demand fair treatment in science, or else both God (gods) need the boot. It is illegal to only favor the goddess of the Atheist religion. Government is not allowed to institute any one religion with similar gods in terms of functionality; both can do anything. The time scale is different.

Water allows one to load the dice of Lady Luck. Water has powerful self adhesion at the nanoscale and always tries to form lowest potential. The organics can interfere with this, but in the the end they need to follow; loading their dice. You can beat Lady Luck in casinos, if you can count cards with water; image of God. But card counting is illegal so the house can always win.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

“The atheistic, evolutionary belief that life came into being from a nonliving entity sometime in the unobserved past is a faith-based position, certainly not a science-based one, because the law of biogenesis has never been overturned and disagreeing with a scientific law is by definition unscientific.

The agnostic atheist/skeptic/empiricist's position is not what this strawman proposes. The "law of biogenesis" - "the principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material" is not a part of science. Disagreeing with creationist strawmen is not unscientific, nor do creationists have any standing when contradicting scientists about science. Here, creationists argue that demonstrating that maggots don't arise from rotting meat nor rats from rags and corn proves that abiogenesis is impossible. It doesn't. But this is what you should expect when you get your science from Answers in Genesis. Their agenda is not the promotion of science and scientific knowledge, but of a religion. Their values and methods are different. Science teaches, religion indoctrinates. Science explains and religion attempts to persuade. Science relies on reason applied to evidence and faith has no need of either.

To believe it must have happened—not just in spite of it never having been observed, but in actual contradiction to repeated experimentation that was directly and purposefully performed to test it—goes way beyond any kind of god-of-the-gaps-type argument.

Another straw man. Apparently, this habit of creationist apologists arguing against claims never made has no meaning to you, but it does to the critical thinker. Why? He has no rebuttal to what has actually been said. You won't rebut (falsify) any of my corrections here because you can't. You can't successfully contradict a single word to you in this reply. You can't resurrect your "law" of biogenesis. You can't rebut my corrections to your straw men or support your straw men.

Also, you (incorrectly) condemn others for using YOUR standards. Nothing you believe has ever been observed to occur, and the evidence is that no human being has ever been born of a virgin, walked unawided on water, or rose from the dead. All existing science says that none of that ever happens.

Does that mean that you don't believe people had or have (these days) experiences with God because you can make up something in your head that you see as a more reasonable explanation than the one about having an experience with God?

Isn't that the right way to process evidence? Why would I believe one of two or more possible explanations without evidence to rule one in and the others out? That's faith. That's a non sequitur fallacy - a belief that doesn't follow from what preceded it. That last choice to guess that one is correct is a leap of faith, and as you see, a logical fallacy.

Accepting only verifiable evidence does not mean that unverified evidence is wrong

What is verified evidence? What is unverified evidence?

Accepting only verifiable evidence leads to saying there is no God

I've already commented to you on the incoherence of that phrase verifiable evidence. It's a category error, like a fulfilled law. Laws can't be fulfilled, and evidence isn't verified. It is apprehended by the senses and interpreted. What can be verified is a conclusion drawn from that evidence by evaluating the validity of the reasoning connecting the evidence to the conclusion. What you seem to mean is accepting only apprehensible evidence leads to atheism, which is NOT a statement that there are no gods. And of course, that would be redundant. It's not evidence of it's not apprehensible and if it's not apprehensible (not evident), it can't be called evidence

It would be a miracle indeed if any creationist who makes that mistake and is corrected would ever adapt to that understanding and stop making that strawman claim, but I've been at this for years, and can tell you that it doesn't happen. It is my hope to see that happen once before I die. Maybe you can be the one who modifies his language to reflect understanding that difference. Maybe you can stop posting claims about what atheists believe that they need to correct you on like that comment above.

it just means that you reject that evidence even if it is accompanied by prophecies that look like they have been fulfilled. After all you can make up in your head, a reason that these prophecies are not authentic.

By authentic, do you mean of transhuman provenance - prophecies a human being could not be expected to make? You've been told why biblical prophecy is not that - why it fails to convince the critical thinker.

The tool to investigate the physical world (science) has become the master who imprisons people into a reality bounded by verifiable evidence

I agree, but see it see that as a feature, not a fault. Critical thinking and empiricism ground us to reality. If you want to understand it, you need to examine it open-mindedly with a certain skill set. Once one let's his imagination go, it's like a hot air balloon previously tethered to reality now free to float off into lands of imagination. Thats great if you're a writer of fiction, but not so great if you're a scientist.

Science has no explanations for life. Science only has abiogenesis as the only possible explanation it can offer (because it has no verifiable evidence for spirits)

Religion has no explanation for anything if by explanation we mean something demonstrably correct. Your answer is to propose a deity and a life force, but you can't demonstrate either nor the need for either. Scientists have been more than happy to consider the evidence for intelligent design. Do you have any? The ID program couldn't produce any. It offered five biological systems as irreducibly complex, but they were shown to be wrong in every case over a decade ago, which must be why you don't hear much from them any more.

and you take it as already having been shown to be true.

Nope. That has been explicitly contradicted here. Will you ever stop making this false claim? Not one skeptic here has said that abiogenesis has been confirmed. It's probably correct that it occurred naturalistically simply because any naturalistic hypothesis is more likely than one that invokes the supernatural to modify nature when none is needed (parsimony). Still, the skeptic's mind is open to that possibility if ever any evidence is uncovered that suggests its likelihood.

Everything happens by chance for atheists when I look at the big picture.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that intention existed anywhere prior to the advent of abiogenesis and biological and psychological evolution. If there was no mind before that, there was no intention.

How do you explain the existence of the god you believe exists? You don't, do you? That god must exist by chance as well by your reckoning. I wouldn't argue. If one exists, it's just luck or chance (I prefer the word unintended) that that was even possible, let alone actual.

Giving life is what God has said that He did and if life is produced artificially then what it does is show what God meant when He said "Let the earth bring forth...............life forms."

So your requirement for abiogenesis is that it repeat itself naturalistically without intelligent oversight so that man can observe that happening? Anything else means we need a god to explain the existence of life? That's not how it works. That's not what observation and repeatability mean in science. Consider forensic science used to solve a murder. It is not necessary to observe the murder or repeat it to solve it. It is necessary that the forensic evidence be observable and the test results on it repeatable.

I cannot understand wanting to study a spiritual book like the Bible and have the idea from the get go that the supernatural elements are not true.

I can't imagine assuming that there is a supernatural realm, at least not since I learned critical thinking.

If spirit exists and science cannot detect it then that does not mean that spirit does not exist.

That's tautologically correct. If spirit exists, that does not mean that spirit does not exist. It actually means the opposite. Why do you think that's important or useful?

 

[F1fan]

Does that mean that you don't believe people had or have (these days) experiences with God because you can make up something in your head that you see as a more reasonable explanation than the one about having an experience with God?

I approach claims made by religious people with skepticism because 1. they are making a fantastic claim, 2. what they claim to exverience isn't expereinced by critical thinkers, or even theists from othr religions, 3. that there is observations that suggest believers are mimicking the behaviors and claims of other believers in their religious tribe, 4. that claimants of experiences with God show no signs of any divine enlightenment, and often quite superficial and crude belief and behavior, 5. there is no compelling evidence that any gods of any religion exists outside of human imagination, and 6. because when we face claims that have no evidence one way or the other we rely on Occam's Razor and defer to the MOST LIKELY option, and that is no supernatural phenomenon existing.

As you should know by now when anyone makes a claim the logical default is to treat the claim as untrue, and we wait for evidence to be presented to conclude the claim is true or at least likely true. As I have posted already the Ashe studies show how easily people will conform to group norms even if they know the group is wrong. That better exlpains why so many will adopt and apply the religious beliefs of those around them. Notice how religions are geographical and cultural, there is no single religious truth in the world.

Accepting only verifiable evidence leads to saying there is no God, because it seems that there is no verifiable evidence for God unless He appears to you, but even that is not verifiable for either you or anyone else even if you know what you experienced. Accepting only verifiable evidence does not mean that unverified evidence is wrong, it just means that you reject that evidence even if it is accompanied by prophecies that look like they have been fulfilled. After all you can make up in your head, a reason that these prophecies are not authentic.

Why do you think there is a God at all? Who told you about a God, and related beliefs? How old were you when you were exposed to these ideas, and why did you accept them?

Whatever "spiritual" is, it is undetectable by science. That does not mean that it does not exist, and science does not say that. It is just something that science cannot say yay or nay to.

The Easter Bunny is also undetectable by science. So if there is an idea that can't be detected, why would you think it is real? Did others around you say it exists and you went along with the norm? It certainly isn't evidence because if there was evidnce science would have it.

I have opinions about why people don't believe also. So?

Theists have an ulterior motive to justify their own irrational beliefs, and to offset any self-doubt they think there must be something wrong with these thinkers. This is not evidence based or reasoning, it is how the mind defends an ego that is afraid of being exposed as a fraud.

Critical thinkers can believe only what science tells them is valid belief. The tool to investigate the physical world (science) has become the master who imprisons people into a reality bounded by verifiable evidence even when other evidence tells us that reality goes far beyond the bounds of what is verifiable.

Science follows facts and data, uses an objective method, and avoids all unnecessary assumptions, and this makes it highly reliable as a means for understanding what is true about how things are. Religion has no standards. It relies on peer pressure and conformity to tribal norms, as explained in the Ashe experiments.

F1fan said: What are you talking about? Gods aren't known to exist. You might as well bring up unicorns. Are they relevant to anything? No. Stick to facts.

So you don't want me to speak about God in a religious forum. So I replied that God is real. So now you accuse me of making up the rules. What a way to twist things around.

I don't want theists to refer to non-factual ideas, like gods, as if they are facts in their claims nd arguments. It is not honest discourse. It is deceptive. If I referred to unicorns as if they are real, and you are delusional if you can't detect them, would you concede my assertion is true, or would you point out that unicorns aren't known to be real?

We are talking about different faiths here. I know you want atheism and science to be the facts which are fighting faith and ignorance, but no that is not the reality of what is going on.

Facts and reasoning will lead people to sound conclusions. Religions do not. Religions make claims and offer no evidence, and require faith. You prefer the faith approach and want it to have the same credibility as science. It doesn't. You seem upset that religious beliefs are being treated as religious belief, and not true statements.

I keep saying that there is evidence and atheist of a certain ilk keep saying that there is no evidence for God or the Bible God.

And I could say there is evidence of unicorns, and religious believers just can't see it. If you weren't religious, you would see the unicorns.

Your approach is this absurd. You claim to have evidence, but you offer none that is recognizable to rational minds. Believers have learned to believe due to social influence, not a re asoned conclusion via facts and evidence. You don't understand how you came to be a religious believer, and now that you are in a debate forum with critical thinkers you are confounded. You don't understand why you believe, so you assume it must be due to evidence. But that is now what we observe. The Ashe experiments show how humans in a social setting will adopt untrue positions due to peer pressure. That better explains how the religious adopted unfactual beliefs. And after many years these beliefs have become crucial to identity, so it is easier to defend beliefs than self-reflect, and face a crisis.

Science has no explanations for life. Science only has abiogenesis as the only possible explanation it can offer (because it has no verifiable evidence for spirits) and you take it as already having been shown to be true.

False. Science understands a great deal about how nature works at every level. Science actually developed the hypothesis of abiogenesis because experts understand how nature works. To be a hypothesis the model has to be plausible as a natural phenomenon, and abiogenesis is. The only thing remaining is for scientists to replicate the natural process in a controlled environment, and that is very difficult to do. In no way does this suggest there is something wrong with the hypothesis, only that the mechanics of the experiment is difficult.

There is no alternative explanation for the rise of life. Nothing. Religious people refer to their magic and Gods. But these are not facts. there are no gods known to exist. Religious folks can't form a hypothesis because of the severe lack of facts, there is no model. So your criticism of science only shows your contempt for what science does.

It is not the religious who are saying that abiogenesis has been shown to be true, when it has not been shown to be true. What's the rush, let science take it's course.

Abiogenesis is an explanation that is completely consistent with how nature works. As I explained it is not a theory yet because of the mechanics of setting up experiments. Did you know that all hypotheses HAVE to work according to what is known about nature? You can't make up nonsense and call it a hypothesis. So your ignorance is more evidence of ccontempt for science. Why is that your approach in these debates?

Believers only know what atheists know about the physical universe and sometimes we can tell atheist that we don't really know certain things, they are presumptions only. (Such as this idea about abiogenesis having already been shown to be true and/or showing that spirits and God is not needed for life)

What you don't admit to here is that believers, like yourself, will use uncertainty as an excuse to bolster your religious belief. Abiogenesis hasn't been verified as a theory? Well maybe it is God.... is how you react. No. Abiogenesis hasn't been verified as atheory, that's all. It is still the only fact-based explanation for the rtise of life. No gods are known to exist to be plausible or a competing option.

Jesus is the truth, so we come to Him.

Who told you this? Why did you take their word for it? What facts and coherent argument convinced you? Feel free to share it so we can assess your reasoning skill for ourselves, ok?

I know and you know that the evidence I have is not scientific evidence and that you want to say that it is not evidence at all. What a way to twist the facts.

If you had facts "Jesus as savior" would be a fact, not an idea justified through faith. Remember, faith is unreliable.

Was it an accusation or just the truth?

It was a non-factual accusation. These last few comments of yours shows the fear of a religious ego being exposed as a less than truthful. Of course you attack critical thinkers, that is the normal response of our fight or flight fear response mechanism. It is our primitive brain that evolution has left intact, even though we don't need it like other animals do.

 

[Valjean]

How does the fruit of probability, in terms of abiogenesis and evolution, conceptually differ from the fruit of God? If a bunch of chemicals were to somehow sequentially form into the very first cell precursors; implied by statistical abiogenesis and evolution, how does that conceptually differ from God doing it? How does the physics differ in terms of the two mechanisms?

Goddidit is an assertion of agency. Abiogenesis is a study of mechanism. It's who? vs how?
"Somehow" form into cell precursors? Why somehow? We know exactly what happens. It's easily observed in any lab, and we understand what mechanisms are involved.

Both theories use an indescribable nebulous variable, to fill in the blanks. What is the physics behind Lady Luck?

What nebulous variable does chemistry or biology use? We don't yet know all the steps, but noöne's proposing nebulous variables, just as yet unobserved chemistry.
Where does lady luck come in? Please clarify.

What similarity Does the similarity make the fruit of statistical assumptions, a type of religion, since it works, vey similar to the way of God?

Similarity? What similarity? How is statistics a type of religion? As you said, it works. It's mathematics.
The way of God? What way of God, magic?

Separation of church and state will require we defund it, unless it seeks religious exemptions.

You've lost me. Defund what, and what do biology or chemistry have to do with church/religion?

If I go to a gambling casino, the odds of winning are based on the same statistical math, as evolution. How can I tell the difference in outcome, if I do not win, from God did it, or Lucky Luck did it? Is the physics different? Do we even know Lady Luck physics?

No. Thereis no natural selection in a casino.
Where are you seeing luck, and how are you questioning physics? I'm not following.

Is there an experiment we can do to see which God (god) gives us the final result, since both involve some type of faith based black box hocus pocus?

There is no black box; no hocus pocus, just ordinary, familiar chemistry. No god posited.

Maybe someone can explain why the odds of Lady Luck exist but the odds from another God is impossible?

We know chance exists. But we have neither evidence of nor an explanatory need for an invisible, intentional, magical personage. God's an extraordinary claim.

Chemistry The only difference is Lady Luck is not named as a being, even though her output skills are that of a goddess. The used car salesman will say that oil puddle is not from this car, so he can sell the car that leaks oil. I see oil!

You keep bringing up this luck thing. I don't understand. How do you see luck as fitting in? Please explain.

God's will is not human will. The will of Lady Luck is also not about human will. They both agree in that sense. In terms of how each system works, in gist, God's will is based on his long term view, where even if we lose, it can still be a blessing in disguise or not. We will know over time. Lady Luck is more based on short term situational, for each day or moment at the casino. Her whims can be prob or con and turn on a dime. This is one difference between these two mystery religions. Our universe may have variety in terms of stars but each follows similar principles. This is sort of a composite affect of the two.

Again, I'm not following this lady luck thing at all. How does luck fit in?

What type of experiment can we run to tell the difference between these two faith based mystery religions, when neither are fully logical or predictable by logic?

Biology isn't mysterious, nor a religion, nor faith based. Please clarify.

Both sort of use their own black boxes for the mystery of faith. Why does science prefer the religion of Lady Luck, to define evolution, seeing Lady luck is situational, and her whims can change second to second with no long term plan?

Biology isn't faith based, nor a religion, n. Please explain how you see luck as a mechanism of evolution. I'm not following your argument at all.

Won't this make the final odds for all the steps needed for life, near impossible? Since God is looking longer term, his odds become better between steps; one step can load the next dice, allowing the near impossible for Lady Luck, to still be possible.

Impossible odds? how are you calculating the odds?

Loaded dice make us win more often. Dice not loaded win less often.

Loaded dice? Life happened, whatever the odds, and how are you calculating odds? How many chances were there?How many throws of the dice?

The Bible says that humans were made in the image of God and not the image of Lady Luck. When we build a car, we don't use the blindfolded building technique, each time, like Lady Luck.

Who cares what the Bible says, and, again, how does this lady luck fit in?

We tend to load the dice with an assembly line, with the long term image of the perfect final car always in sight. If humans can do this, why is the goddess of science made so dumb?

What are these dice? Please explain what you're talking about.

Does this have anything to do with the human ego? If we pick Lady Luck, we can do better than the gods and therefore we are like the gods? This might intoxicate the ego of science.

Human ego? Lady Luck? What are you talking about?

Why doesn't science have a problem with the Lady Luck religion still being in science? The tax payers need to demand fair treatment in science, or else both God (gods) need the boot. It is illegal to only favor the goddess of the Atheist religion. Government is not allowed to institute any one religion with similar gods in terms of functionality; both can do anything. The time scale is different.

Both Gods? What Gods?
Atheist religion? How is something with no beliefs, doctrine, or rituals a religion, and what does government have to do with anything?

 

[Jose Fly]

Giving life is what God has said that He did and if life is produced artificially then what it does is show what God meant when He said "Let the earth bring forth...............life forms."
But no, most gaps in our knowledge that have been said to have been the work of God are not things that God has said about "I did that". It is just stuff made up by men.
And really finding a natural mechanism for anything does not eliminate the need for God to have created things so they could work that way.
But creation is just another one of those gaps that God said that He did, just like giving life.

That was the point we discussed before. "God made it that way" doesn't actually explain anything and is just a post hoc assertion that can be made no matter what we find. If we find that life arose via Mechanism X, well "God made it that way". If we find that life arose via the complete opposite of Mechanism X, well "God made it that way" then.

I'm sure it provides comfort and reassurance to believers, but as an actual explanation it has no value.

Go along with no answers indefinitely or until you die and leave the waiting to the next generation of atheist who do the same.

What's wrong with that? There are lots of things I'm quite sure won't be figured out in my lifetime. I mean, it's not like I expect us to figure everything there is to know before I die.

Are you the type of person for whom "I don't know" isn't really an option? It's better to believe gods were responsible for things that we haven't figured out, rather than just say "I don't know"?

But as it happens scientific answers are no needed for atheists when the believe is there that it had to have happened naturally because the alternative is unacceptable. And I can understand that even if I cannot understand rejecting evidence for God because it is not evidence that science can use. And I cannot understand wanting to study a spiritual book like the Bible and have the idea from the get go that the supernatural elements are not true.

Well as I said earlier, as an apatheist I really don't have any interest in gods one way or the other.

Well that is what I said. Just because science cannot detect spirit, does that mean that spirit does not exist? If spirit exists and science cannot detect it then that does not mean that spirit does not exist.
So in science, spirit, God, the supernatural, are ignored because they cannot be detected for sure, but science does not deny their possible existence. It is just atheists/skeptics who do that.

If they can't be detected, how can anyone know they exist?

I hope you appreciate what you're doing here. You're griping about atheists/skeptics not believing in something that you can't define or detect. See the problem?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How does the fruit of probability, in terms of abiogenesis and evolution, conceptually differ from the fruit of God? If a bunch of chemicals were to somehow sequentially form into the very first cell precursors; implied by statistical abiogenesis and evolution, how does that conceptually differ from God doing it? How does the physics differ in terms of the two mechanisms?

If you can't tell the difference between an unintended, naturalistic process and one intended by a god, then you don't need the god in your narrative.

If I go to a gambling casino, the odds of winning are based on the same statistical math, as evolution. How can I tell the difference in outcome, if I do not win, from God did it, or Lucky Luck did it? Is the physics different?

Once again, if the outcomes are the same both with and without a god hypothesis, you don't need the god.

What type of experiment can we run to tell the difference between these two faith based mystery religions

Statistics is neither a religion nor faith-based. None of mathematics is. Abrahamic monotheism is.

And once again, if you can't tell the difference between a universe without a god and one with one, you don't need or want the god in your worldview. It adds nothing.

Your fascination with water is interesting. It's never been clear to me what your point was. We know water is a unique substance with remarkable properties. Is that evidence of a god to you? If not, why do you keep going there? If so, what are you actually proposing that this god is needed for?

 

[rational experiences]

The human truth Theists are liars.

Based on humans want as human only chosen ideas subjects topics then themed stories.

Legal said no man is God. Seeing science tried destroying life on earth twice before by technology.

The Jesus topic was what time frame was the rebuilt temple science re used.

The advice says when men's life mind DNA body type to be a conscious scientist had returned. The only place position.

Why monkey mutated human is their topic. With men trying by data to pinpoint the moment in man's returned life when he applied technology again.

As biological man's consciousness.

As zero time he used was to recount years. Used as a teaching model was only chosen by concepts about star mass returned attacking life. They had to document it was recurring as science of man had activated its return. By causes Jesus phi sciences.

The fall of man.

It was used as proof. Historic data.

Man's science rebuilt Jesus technology was based on mens recount of data by old testimonials writings. Documented proofs science had mutated bio life on earth as a God heavens ground energy release.

Jesus terms began after the rebuild. Old testimony documented data the moment of advised conscious life returned. So as they rebuilt old technology it's why philosophers stated it's the same science.

Don't do it. Rome gained mother abomination title as they caused the attack.

You have to be living as humans have built on seven hills to be told men living there abominated life again. Same as old technology testimonials just a new varied attack.

Their argument is no we began again with updated version safety the henges.

Man looks back as theist of science today says Jesus science was first. Because it was new science. As it's when he had consciously returned healed. Having once been higher healthier man mind before old first technology.

It wasn't safe. It blew up the temple as before. Reactivated massive star mass returned fall instead of holy star wandering past earth.

Rome was burnt because of it. No hero. Time Nero. Man's coded proof I changed Zero.

Science today is only researching our biology as data advice. To see if they could realise moment of technology rebuild activation.

The UFO star mass was still crossing to year calculated long count 2012. It's cessation. Unholy cross.

Moment is now inside nuclear power plant as newer new science taught cooling control as no machine blow up.

As they didn't use Phi transmitters like you claim Rome had. When Rome uses henges to overcome crop hit it wasn't using Phi either. They believed they were dealing with the fall.

As a man with a machine science says I enlarge small cells to giant cells to view them is lying. As he compares his medical cell advice to crop circles.

To see by biology is by natural eyesight. Not by machine. We see phi only pushes onto crop mass flattening it but doesn't damage the cells.

Flattening isn't how a crop grows it's still a change.

Take away your machines you don't own science is pretty basic the destroyer human advice.

No man exists as a bio man in just water oxygenated mass living bio cells.

The topic exact. A living bio cell living position. Isn't any pre action in the advice. It is direct first as it is living first.

Your thesis takes a living microbe you look at. To your solid base chemical thesis of just a man.... which it isn't. To its actual destruction as it's not a solid base first as cell destruction. Pretending you just invented it yourself as a man.

No man is a God was humans legal right to exist healed and highest human self.

Living body only. Now..present ....instant as it never went anywhere. As only the human applies science so how did you go anywhere else?

Science of a human says we left as he says by genesis data. We never left being human first.

 

[Brian2]

The opinion is that what they experienced was a god. There is insufficient support to justify that assumption..

OK that is your opinion.

Evidence is examined and interpreted, not verified. Conclusions are verified if the reasoning connecting them to the evidence is fallacy-free..

OK thanks for that.

If the spiritual cannot impact experience (our senses), why even think about it? If it could, that would be the evidence for it, and it could be studied. There is no spiritual realm to our knowledge, just this realm in which we can have endogenous spiritual experiences. Our minds inform us of what we find spiritual, which is synonymous to that which makes us feel good, connected, a sense of belonging (cf. alienation), and some combination of awe, value (love), gratitude, and mystery. When it generates that conscious experience, we call it a spiritual experience. It is closely related to other experiences the brain generates, such as what we consider beautiful or funny. Unseen mechanisms process our apprehensions and tell us not just what they imply about reality (memory), but also how we feel about them. Your mind hears or reads a joke, determines that it is a joke, and after that, whether your funny-meter liked it. The spiritual experience is similar.

Notice that I don't include spirits anywhere in this, nor a spiritual realm. There is nothing spiritual about either of those. Such ideas are an unfortunate detour man has taken with the Abrahamic religions, which have anthropomorphized that spiritual intuition (called it God) and removed it from nature..

So science does not say anything about the spiritual but individuals have their opinions.
When it comes to the Abrahamic religions, it is individuals who have opinions about it being true or not.
The ridiculous thing I find about science and the Abrahamic religion is that people use science's presumption of no supernatural in their study of the Bible and end up with circular reasoning in their conclusions about aspects of the Bible.

There is nothing that humans that are not scientists can see not visible to scientists, who are also human..

OK so all humans can see beyond science and know there are other possibilities outside of the scientific sphere.

Spiritual things are irrelevant if they can't be studied, which means that same thing as being not evident to the senses. Personally, I am only interested in things that can affect my conscious experience, and anything that can do that is evidence as soon as it does..

Presumably religious belief must affect you conscious experience.

That is not the position of the agnostic atheist. Why is this so difficult for so many theists to assimilate? There's a place between belief and disbelief called agnosticism, which we can call unbelief. It is different from disbelief. Can you not imagine having no opinion about the truth status of a statement? Maybe an analogy will help - trust. There are those who we have known long enough to have trusted and been correct that they were trustworthy. There are those that we have known long enough to know that that should not be trusted. But how about people we know nothing about? Do we know that we can trust them? No. Do we know that they cannot be trusted? No. So we don't trust them. This is not calling them dishonest or unreliable.

So you say God probably does not exist because God has no evidence. But the evidence exists, it is just that you dismiss it.

 

[rational experiences]

God exists held the body and flesh O energy mass.

Proven by planets all termed a God.

God the unseen was infinite law pressure the body owning holding and not just scattered mass.

So God is seen in its energy flesh.

The God unseen was natural law infinite nothing space pressure.

A humans teaching relativity in space only about God...not suns and not stars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK that is your opinion.

No, even you confirm it since you cannot properly support your beliefs. Tell us when you say "that is your opinion" is that code for admitting that you are wrong? If it isn't then you should be refuting his pots, not spouting mindless platitudes.

OK thanks for that.



So science does not say anything about the spiritual but individuals have their opinions.
When it comes to the Abrahamic religions, it is individuals who have opinions about it being true or not.
The ridiculous thing I find about science and the Abrahamic religion is that people use science's presumption of no supernatural in their study of the Bible and end up with circular reasoning in their conclusions about aspects of the Bible.

And individual opinions are not worth a hill of beans. What matters is what one can support. And no, why do you keep making the same mistake? No one in the sciences uses "science's presumption of no supernatural". That would be improper. Since there is no reliable evidence of the supernatural they simply ignore what does not seem to exist. Find some evidence and they will sit up and notice.

OK so all humans can see beyond science and know there are other possibilities outside of the scientific sphere.

That is a bit of a stretch there may be a possibility of the supernatural. That would put it even a rung lower on the ladder. Why is the concept of evidence so abhorrent to some people? If you really believe you should find a way to test your beliefs properly so that you would have evidence.

Presumably religious belief must affect you conscious experience.

Why?

So you say God probably does not exist because God has no evidence. But the evidence exists, it is just that you dismiss it.

Or you might not understand the concept.

 

[F1fan]

So science does not say anything about the spiritual but individuals have their opinions.
When it comes to the Abrahamic religions, it is individuals who have opinions about it being true or not.
The ridiculous thing I find about science and the Abrahamic religion is that people use science's presumption of no supernatural in their study of the Bible and end up with circular reasoning in their conclusions about aspects of the Bible.

Why would anyone assume a supernatural exists? Based on what would a rational mind assume this?

OK so all humans can see beyond science and know there are other possibilities outside of the scientific sphere.

There is nothing to see that science doesn't also see, that is the point. Many theists claim they "see" certain things that is evidence to them that their version of God exists. Objective minds can't see anything. What is the special ability these theists have? they don't exlpain what it is, or even admit they have any such thing.

How about you, do you have special sensory abilities that allow you to "see" evidence of God that ordinary minds can't detect?

Let's note that possibilities outside the scientific sphere is well presented in many Hollywood movies, that include wizards, elves, witches, superheroes, non-existant civlizations, etc. That is the world of religious belief, non-scientific and well imagined.

So you say God probably does not exist because God has no evidence. But the evidence exists, it is just that you dismiss it.

With so much evidence for God it astounds me you don't bother listing any of it here. It's almost as if you are bluffing. Remember that for extraordinary claims extraordinary evidence is required.

 

[rational experiences]

Man said the eternal no existence...created creation has always existed.

It existed. The eternal being changed its owned body.

To change a body it had to express three concepts.

The mass a spirit motivated being lived within. Voiced outcomes. Three.

Change is after. Why it's spiritual creation.

 

[Brian2]

Actually explaining all of reality is the job of science. It is a problem solving method. But God does not explain anything. It is a claim and a magical claim at that.

It does not explain all of reality and is not for that?

No, we have a well earned respect. We can show that it leads to the same answer for problems countless times. It solves problems that other methods can't. One's work can be crosschecked and confirmed or refuted by others. You just can't do that with religious beliefs. Totally different answers are given depending upon a person's faith. A Muslim cannot show a Christian to be wrong and a Christian cannot show a Muslim to be wrong. One ends up believing what one wants to believe. Usually the faith that one was born into.

True and atheists and skeptics also end up believing what they want to believe.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says science is exact only to the base of all machines components. Man's science. Man's owned built God designs.

Many designs. Many functions. Lots of factors. Multi chemistries.

The body the machine.

As reactions in space is exact not on earth inside a living water heavens.

And his God the machine hadn't invented or yet reacted by every moment he bio lives ...owned the caused by destruction what existed created. His real ruin.

Bio man moment to moment always living before his caused machines reaction.

As water droplets in space cooled to gases from mass consuming itself.

So he looks at the past dead things. Says yep it's science. Dead things equals science. His theories exact.

His holy philosopher only brother natural man. Holy man. Spiritual consciousness says....do as little harm as possible said don't look at dead things. Don't thesis about dead things.

Claimed legal as the new way for families world unity. Legal. Our founding on man's human consciousness and a shut book.

Bibles oath. After the end.

Assessment complete. Science of men lied were legally proven life's destroyer.