God is disproven by science? Really?

[SkepticThinker]

I think you meant, “It only makes *you* look ignorant”.

Lol.

I doubt it, since that doesn't make much sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you meant, “It only makes *you* look ignorant”.

Lol.

Do you understand the Ninth Commandment? It appears that you do not.

 

[Audie]

I doubt it, since that doesn't make much sense.

I was too dumb to see the sense.
Or else it's not there.

 

[exchemist]

I think you meant, “It only makes *you* look ignorant”.

Lol.

No, he meant what he said and I agree. It's all to do with the fact that you can't seem to get through your skull that science deals in hypotheses and evidence, not proof.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nothing explains why there is something rather than nothing.

Yes, there is an explanation. In other fields of science we always accept an intelligent source as the explanation for discovered patterns & functional complexity. Except in biology and geology, where we’ve discovered interacting systems with orders of magnitude higher complexity. Almost everywhere we look.

“If reality contains a god, we have no answers for why or how.”

I’d say there is part of a reasonable answer . The discovery that energy can “neither be created nor destroyed”, IOW, energy in some form or another has always existed. That explains God’s eternal existence.
There’s still a lot to learn about different forms of energy… like dark matter, etc.

That's how it should be. Scientists understand the limits of their knowledge and express ideas tentatively, that is, their degree of believability is commensurate with the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence and is amenable to revision with new discoveries. That's a feature of science, not a bug.

Yes, and that is great! The bug comes when those suggestive words expressing tentative ideas, are turned around and stated as fact. Unfortunately, people will say, “We know how it happened now!” overlooking the fact that little evidence supports it.

The bug is the inflexibility of unjustified religious certitude in unfalsifiable claims.

Yes, I agree. But… (I better be careful, I almost injected a religious explanation of an unfalsifiable claim with certitude!)

And then, life on earth appears - also a much more interesting story now that we know more about Mars and the very real possibility of panspermia on earth via impacts of Mars. The argument for that is that life appeared on Earth almost as soon as it cooled enough to support it. Mars, being smaller and further from the sun, cooled sooner, and had evolved into an ocean world with an atmosphere to hold the oceans down and a magnetic field to protect the atmosphere from the solar wind while earth was still steaming. It might well have been the first place abiogenesis occurred in our solar system and the source of the first life on Earth.

But the story isn't over. Earth eventually becomes a free oxygen world leading to multicellular life including animal life, and eventually, an ozone layer and terrestrial life (plants beginning with mosses, flying and crawling insects, and eventually, walking tetrapod vertebrates including man).

All speculative.

“…the very real possibility of
panspermia…”?
I’m sorry, but panspermia is a fringe idea, with little support among mainstream among mainstream scientists.

But you call it a “very real possibility.” Who else does? And why? Is it because no other way by natural means seems to “check all the (required) boxes”?

Have a good one, my friend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you understand the Ninth Commandment? It appears that you do not.

You are a witness against yourself. You’ve made your attitude, abundantly clear.

And really, what “appears” to you, is one of my least concerns.

Let God judge between you & me.

I still wish you a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, there is an explanation. In other fields of science we always accept an intelligent source as the explanation for discovered patterns & functional complexity. Except in biology and geology, where we’ve discovered interacting systems with orders of magnitude higher complexity. Almost everywhere we look.

You forgot chemistry and physics. In fact in all of science we see patterns and "functional complexity".

“If reality contains a god, we have no answers for why or how.”

I’d say there is part of a reasonable answer . The discovery that energy can “neither be created nor destroyed”, IOW, energy in some form or another has always existed. That explains God’s eternal existence.
There’s still a lot to learn about different forms of energy… like dark matter, etc.

We have a lot to learn about dark matter. So what? That does not help you with your God claims.

Yes, and that is great! The bug comes when those suggestive words expressing tentative ideas, are turned around and stated as fact. Unfortunately, people will say, “We know how it happened now!” overlooking the fact that little evidence supports it.

Oh my! What on Earth are you talking about now? It can't be evolution. It cannot even be abiogenesis. Evolution has more evidence for it than any other concept in science. And there is a huge and growing body of evidence for abiogenesis. So precisely what do you think that there is not an abundance of evidence for?

Yes, I agree. But… (I better be careful, I almost injected a religious explanation of an unfalsifiable claim with certitude!)

All speculative.

“…the very real possibility of
panspermia…”?
I’m sorry, but panspermia is a fringe idea, with little support among mainstream among mainstream scientists.

But you call it a “very real possibility.” Who else? And why? Is it because no other way by natural means seems to “check all the (required) boxes”?

Have a good one, my friend.

You are now abusing the term "speculative". There may not be as much evidence for panspermia from Mars, but it is a bit above speculation. The problem is that you have no understanding of the sciences at all so you have no clue as to what is speculation and what is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are a witness against yourself. You’ve made your attitude, abundantly clear.

And really, what “appears” to you, is one of my least concerns.

Let God judge between you & me.

I still wish you a good day.

You bore false witness against me. Your accusations were false. That is breaking the Ninth Commandment even if you believe your false claims.

And how can a nonexistent being judge? How seriously would you take a foolish Muslim threatening you with Allah? Think about it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I doubt it, since that doesn't make much sense.

Whoosh!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, he meant what he said and I agree.

Are you all really that clueless?

SZ wrote:

It only makes look ignorant.

This.makes.no.sense! So you agree with second-grade English?

I was pointing out SZ’s semantic error when I responded:

I think you meant, “It only makes *you* look ignorant”.

Lol.

Y’all were so intent on attacking me, that you didn’t even recognize his grammatically invalid sentence.


Lol.

 

[exchemist]

Are you all really that clueless?

SZ wrote:

This.makes.no.sense! So you agree with second-grade English?

I was pointing out SZ’s semantic error when I responded:

Y’all were so intent on attacking me, that you didn’t even recognize his grammatically invalid sentence.


Lol.

Well whoop-deedoo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you all really that clueless?

SZ wrote:

This.makes.no.sense! So you agree with second-grade English?

I was pointing out SZ’s semantic error when I responded:

Y’all were so intent on attacking me, that you didn’t even recognize his grammatically invalid sentence.


Lol.

Your excuse falls flat. It did not feel like that. By the way, you should know that a typo is not second grade English. But okay, I made a mistake. Now why can't you own up to your mistakes when it comes to the sciences?

You do not seem to understand that there is almost no difference between a Christian that is a Flat Earther, the Bible does only describe the Earth as Flat if one reads it literally. In fact many of the writers probably did believe in a flat Earth. They had an excuse if they had that belief. Modern ones do not. It is only a very very small step from that to YEC. You both have to deny almost all of the sciences, you have to deny history, you have to deny archaeology. You have to deny almost all knowledge to justify that belief.

 

[Audie]

Whoosh!

Is that the sound of an Epiphany flushing finally
your confusion

Your excuse falls flat. It did not feel like that. By the way, you should know that a typo is not second grade English. But okay, I made a mistake. Now why can't you own up to your mistakes when it comes to the sciences?

You do not seem to understand that there is almost no difference between a Christian that is a Flat Earther, the Bible does only describe the Earth as Flat if one reads it literally. In fact many of the writers probably did believe in a flat Earth. They had an excuse if they had that belief. Modern ones do not. It is only a very very small step from that to YEC. You both have to deny almost all of the sciences, you have to deny history, you have to deny archaeology. You have to deny almost all knowledge to justify that belief.

Why has no fundie ever been known to
admit a mistake? The q is bigger than just one person.

 

[Madmogwai]

Science, by its very nature, is limited to the study of observable phenomena and relies on empirical evidence to make conclusions. It follows the scientific method, which involves formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing data to draw logical inferences. Science has undeniably made tremendous progress in understanding various aspects of the natural world, from the fundamental laws of physics to the intricacies of biological systems.
Scientists have only recently spoken of the possibility of alternate Dimensions, something some religions have spoken about for thousands of years.
Scientists still claim they know nothing of these Dimensions they now believe exist, so it’s fair to say these dimensions contain the very things they say don’t exist.

 

[Whateverist]

Not really, but when you consider how many former believers have gone apostate and how many current ones worry about it, it’s pretty clear people have lost the knack for reading the implicit, metaphorical mythos of religion, mistakenly reading it explicitly and denotatively as they would science or the law. Both believers in intelligent design (like the guy who started this thread) and many atheists seem to think that science and religion must accord and argue for their positions largely by appealing to what they see as its superior fit with science. Weird.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, there is an explanation. In other fields of science we always accept an intelligent source as the explanation for discovered patterns & functional complexity. Except in biology and geology, where we’ve discovered interacting systems with orders of magnitude higher complexity. Almost everywhere we look.

So your answer to the complexity of the natural world is to insert an even more complex deity without having to explain where that complexity came from? That's not an explanation. It's an appeal to magic. And it has no explanatory power. It doesn't tell us anything at all. And it leaves us wondering where the complex deity came from, if your assertion is that complexity requires intelligence behind it.

“If reality contains a god, we have no answers for why or how.”

I’d say there is part of a reasonable answer . The discovery that energy can “neither be created nor destroyed”, IOW, energy in some form or another has always existed. That explains God’s eternal existence.
There’s still a lot to learn about different forms of energy… like dark matter, etc.

Yes, and that is great! The bug comes when those suggestive words expressing tentative ideas, are turned around and stated as fact. Unfortunately, people will say, “We know how it happened now!” overlooking the fact that little evidence supports it.

Yes, I agree. But… (I better be careful, I almost injected a religious explanation of an unfalsifiable claim with certitude!)

All speculative.

“…the very real possibility of
panspermia…”?
I’m sorry, but panspermia is a fringe idea, with little support among mainstream among mainstream scientists.

But you call it a “very real possibility.” Who else does? And why? Is it because no other way by natural means seems to “check all the (required) boxes”?

Have a good one, my friend.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whoosh!

Things that don't make sense usually whiz by my head.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you all really that clueless?

SZ wrote:

This.makes.no.sense! So you agree with second-grade English?

I was pointing out SZ’s semantic error when I responded:

Y’all were so intent on attacking me, that you didn’t even recognize his grammatically invalid sentence.


Lol.

Well, I'm not a grammar Nazi, so I don't really care. I managed to figure out the meaning, regardless.

And I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your arguments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, there is an explanation. In other fields of science we always accept an intelligent source as the explanation for discovered patterns & functional complexity. Except in biology and geology, where we’ve discovered interacting systems with orders of magnitude higher complexity. Almost everywhere we look.

There is no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing including the above. You impute an intelligent source, but there is no known reason why one exists.

“If reality contains a god, we have no answers for why or how.”

I’d say there is part of a reasonable answer . The discovery that energy can “neither be created nor destroyed”, IOW, energy in some form or another has always existed. That explains God’s eternal existence.

You can't explain why matter is neither created nor destroyed, nor why it exists even if it can't be destroyed.

All speculative.

Is that part of an argument that it is probably incorrect?

“…the very real possibility of
panspermia…”?
I’m sorry, but panspermia is a fringe idea, with little support among mainstream among mainstream scientists.

Same question: Is that part of an argument that it is probably incorrect?

you call it a “very real possibility.” Who else does?

The idea of panspermia is old, but more recent evidence in support of Martian abiogenesis and the possibility of lithopanspermia (microscopic life traveling through space in rocky vessels) has made it more plausible.

And why? Is it because no other way by natural means seems to “check all the (required) boxes”?

It's a very real possibility because if life could arise on Earth, it probably could have arisen on Mars as well, and if so, it would have occurred before it did on Earth, which was too hot to generate or support life for far longer than Mars. And if there were a realistic mechanism for that life to get from Mars to Earth, then the possibility that it happened is realistic, too.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You can't explain why matter is neither created nor destroyed, nor why it exists even if it can't be destroyed.

Matter can be destroyed. Fire does it all the time. The energy within it is another ‘matter’ (pardon the pun!); it simply transforms.

Yes, a lot of unanswered questions; but still, conclusions are made.

Is that part of an argument that it is probably incorrect?

I will simply post this:

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is great! But I’ll tell you one thing about this… these lab-controlled experiments demonstrate that it took an intelligent mind to accomplish them.

Show me how this could be done by natural means, de novo, and you’ll have my attention.

Show me how natural processes formed the first bacterial flagellum, or the first cell membrane, or the first one of the dozens of other cell machinery, and began cooperating.

Or how, through mindless natural processes, the first symbiotic relationship originated.

I’m interested in learning how these systems began.

I’ve stated many times, that adaptation / evolution has produced the diversity we observe, I accept that. And that’s a lot. The evidence supporting evolution within families of organisms is everywhere.

But the first one of each of these (for lack of a better encompassing word) systems? Both living & non-living? It required an intelligence. And to me, it also took a Mind for setting the fine-tuned parameters in place to establish & promote the flourishing environment for living things.

Same question: Is that part of an argument that it is probably incorrect?

Regarding Panspermia? Taking in all that is considered, from the life-killing vacuum of space, to the lack of evidence for it, I would say yes. In whole.

The idea of panspermia is old, but more recent evidence in support of Martian abiogenesis and the possibility of lithopanspermia (microscopic life traveling through space in rocky vessels) has made it more plausible.

It's a very real possibility because if life could arise on Earth, it probably could have arisen on Mars as well, and if so, it would have occurred before it did on Earth, which was too hot to generate or support life for far longer than Mars. And if there were a realistic mechanism for that life to get from Mars to Earth, then the possibility that it happened is realistic, too.

I’m sorry…. I know you won’t like this….but that requires a lot of faith.

I hope you’ll have a great rest-of-the-day!

You’re one of the few atheists here, with whom I enjoy discussing these topics.
I appreciate your mildness.

Others on RF, seem to get all bent out of shape, and resort to Ad-Hom attacks on my intelligence, lack of knowledge, or honesty.

Using it to distract, really demeans their own argument imo.