Our belief that it's natural is the observable evidence of chemistry and physics, and the dearth of evidence for the supernatural.
While awaiting evidence for the supernatural, we go with the actual evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you detect "design"?
- Thread starter TagliatelliMonster
- Start date
While awaiting evidence for the supernatural, we go with the actual evidence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So you have solved methodological naturalism and this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Where is your paper on that? You would be the great scientist/philosopher ever!!!
????? -- not following.
I'm only aware of one viable, evidenced hypothesis.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One thing that you have to remember is that all of the "truths" of science are tentative. That means that one can rationally believe in only the physical as long as one keeps an open mind and is willing to be convinced by later evidence or rational argument. And it need not be scientific evidence though historically scientific evidence tends to be the most reliable kind of evidence, even it is refuted at times.What is your evidence for that? As far as I can tell is a norm and not evidence, but if you believe that you have evidence for that, you are irrational according to your own rule.
Also to function in the world we have to act as if facts were real. the consequences of what happens if one ignores those facts can be deadly. People do not tend to keep an open mind about gravity and step off of cliffs to see if gravity is still a fact.
The literature is full of such examples, as well as observations and hypotheses of mechanism. Google.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He did not say that or imply that. He was pointing out that it is clearly beneficial to treat the world as if it were real. Show us how it is not and we will change our minds. But until then I am not walking off of any cliffs.So you have solved methodological naturalism and this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Where is your paper on that? You would be the great scientist/philosopher ever!!!
The evidence is the definition of "rational."What is your evidence for that? As far as I can tell is a norm and not evidence, but if you believe that you have evidence for that, you are irrational according to your own rule.
"Norm?" Do you mean an observation, or a tenet of logic?
A belief without evidence is not a rational belief. It may be sincere, it may be strongly felt. It may be traditional and widely popular; but it is not rational.
But molecules above absolute zero are always in motion. Maybe all the molecules in your body will move "up" at the same time..... So why not try it?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That ,is, is not a statement of a fact, like you see a cat and say the cat is black. That ,is, is let a belief without evidence be not a rational belief.
That let be is a cogntive process or a normative claim if you like.
A defintion is not a fact. If that was the case, then this is a fact:
God, one defintion: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. So that is now a fact???
You wouldn't accept that and neither would I.So you are stating how you think. That is not an objective fact and not science.
A God/creator/designer being shown to exist, and how it does anything.
That's your challenge. What do you have? If nothing, then all we have is science.
Yes, they can. Self-replicating molecules are common.
Well, the fact that Earth was once a lifeless sphere, and now has life, is pretty strong evidence. Life did happen, So what explanation seems more likely: known, observable, tested mechanisms like chemistry or physics, or magic?
The original pathway has not been determined, nor have all the steps involved; but when we examine life, all we find is chemistry and electronics.
I maintain that it's more reasonable to look into the familiar mechanisms that have always clarified the 'miracles' attributed to God in the past, than to entertain a proposition of magic. At least Chemistry is within the purview of science, and can be investigated. How would one investigate magic? What evidence, besides incredulity, is there for divine magic?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, natural sciences, social sciences, cultural sciences, philosophy, religion and politics are what we have. Natural science is only a part of it.
I forgot STEM and then everyday life.
If you went to cosmic space and suddenly found a planet full of robots that communicate with each other and carry out all kinds of activities, ...
... would you think that they put themselves together, by chemical and mechanical processes that occurred over billions of years?
... would you think that they put themselves together, by chemical and mechanical processes that occurred over billions of years?
Yet the sciences are the only items on your list that have a high standard for conclusions, and must follow facts and account for all data. The rest are subject to human whim and belief.Well, natural sciences, social sciences, cultural sciences, philosophy, religion and politics are what we have. Natural science is only a part of it.
I forgot STEM and then everyday life.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
If you went to cosmic space and suddenly found a planet full of robots that communicate with each other and carry out all kinds of activities, ...
... would you think that they put themselves together, by chemical and mechanical processes that occurred over billions of years?
No, I would think there would have been something like humans around in the past, since we only have evidence for robots as effect of being bulid by humans.
I don't think your example means that which you apparently think it do.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Now remove the subjective parts of brains and see how far you get. It wouldn't even work with you as far as I understand the biology invloved.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok granted,(the red text is granted) you are correct so what would you consider evidence against the claim that abiogenesis happened naturally? what experiment/observation/test woudl count as evidnece?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
What is more complex to appear by itself out of casualties: a robot or a human?
I don't understand your question as per the bold?
A 1975 pocket calculator is more complex than a creationist. At least the calculator gives correct answers.What is more complex to appear by itself out of casualties: a robot or a human?