Life From Dirt?

[Bthoth]

Science does not show the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, either.

Though shalt not used gods name in vain.

So God doesn't exist, or do you have some novel conception of "part of the creation?"

Lives in the sea

You're basing your whole belief system on completely unsupported premises.

But the picture is real

 

[Valjean]

What God has said that He has done remains intact.

What has God said He has done? Does He even exist? Evidence, please.
NB: subjective evidence is not acceptable. Sanjay down the street has the same subjective evidence, so does Muhammad up the street -- but you all disagree. Subjective evidence is not reliable.

People have claimed the hand of God for things where the mechanism was not know, and they had no right to do that. Then the mechanism is discovered and skeptics claim that God is being shown to be untrue

No. They claim the apologist's claim of evidence has been shown invalid. God remains a possibility.

.... but really it is just the false claims about what God has done which have been shown to be untrue.

Exactly! Who's claiming otherwise?

An endless regression is impossible imo since an infinite time into the past means we cannot be here yet.

I'm not following your reasoning, here.

The universe had a beginning but I think science postulates that the stuff of the universe has always existed in some form.
Actually it is hard to pin down what "science" as a being, believes about this, there seem to be various beliefs depending on why you listen to. It is all speculation.

Agreed. Science is still trying to sort this out. It's making no definite claims, yet.

Magic is just a way of saying we don't know the mechanism. Magic is just something skeptics like to say about God.

No. Magic is an evidentiary claim. Not knowing is just 'unknown.

"Who" is arguably a more important question than "why" as it gives purpose for us and everything.

Huh? It gives us a name; an identity, nothing more. Where are you seeing purpose in a mere name?
A name makes no claims about the named one's nature, actions or desires.

"Who" is not even a scientific question. If all you can see is science, chemistry, physics etc then that is all you will ever see.

If you see anything more, wouldn't you be hallucinating?
Do you claim to see things with no material existence?

Empiricism gets you nowhere in relation to God unless you think God is a part of the universe and can be tested.
Empiricism as a way to find God or if God exists requires faith.

Agreed. There is, as yet, no empirical evidence of God. That's why atheists withhold belief. It's why, I assume, you withhold belief in pink unicorns..

No doubt that is true, but that does not mean that the Bible has been falsified,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is taking it too far and requires faith.

No. There is abundant, consilient, objective and historical evidence of error. Scientists in relevant fields, Biblical scholars and historians have all pointed this out.

Why do you think that I don't think objective evidence is true. I do think it is true. I just go beyond the tool of science and what it can test, and believe other evidence also. It is a journey and so most peoples' personal evidence is not completely true even if it is part of the way there.

The way where?

Why do you think that I don't think objective evidence is true. I do think it is true. I just go beyond the tool of science and what it can test, and believe other evidence also. It is a journey and so most peoples' personal evidence is not completely true even if it is part of the way there.

The way where?
But your "other evidence" is not credible or valid. As you point out, it's subjective and thus perceived only by yourself.
A: It's indistinguishable from delusion or hallucination. B: The subjective claims of others are not consistent.

I can give reasonable evidence that everyone can see but that does not mean that people will agree or will want to agree.

Support it with real evidence and it will be generally accepted.

Reason, logic, maths are common for all people but reason and logic end up in different places for different people.

Given the same set of facts, why would reason deliver different conclusions, unless there were a problem with the logic/maths?

What are errors in my belief that you can point to and that show your lack of belief is a better option?

My lack of belief is a rational option, it's valid. Gut feelings, subjective beliefs and emotions are not rational or reliable assessment tools. Your errors are in epistemic methodology.

 

[Brian2]

Is there? How do you know that? I've never been told of a purpose by any god(s).

If you don't believe God is speaking to you through a particular revelation then how are you going to believe the message is from any god/s?

If there is no way to verify (test) it, then it really doesn't count as evidence.

It does not have to be verifiable if it helps to convince you there is a creator/designer. It serves as evidence for you.
You seem to be talking about what science requires for evidence and rejecting all evidence unless it complies, is verifiable. BUT you do not do that in your day to day life with so many things, you seem to be making an exception for evidence for god.

Now you've contradicted yourself.

How?

Notoriously unreliable subjective experiences, eh? Then you've got plenty of 'evidence' for multiple mutually contradictory versions of god and gods, endless unrelated spirit worlds, alien abductions, homoeopathy, and so, on, and so on...
Wow, you must be very confused.

Being on this forum is enough to confuse anyone but no I'm not confused.
There are plenty of gods and religions and spirit worlds but I just believe one of the many is correct.
Maybe you are confused about which if any is the right one.
But they all point to humanity's search for more, for god and some of those religions have human experience of spirits.

 

[Brian2]

Science comes with hypothesis that are based in evidence.
It just so happens that evidence only points to natural phenomenon and no evidence points to magic.

Yes, science never considers magical answers. For the simple reason that magical answers can't be tested, can't be verified and can't have evidence.

This means that claims of magic can not be distinguished from sheer imagination.

Speculation about the origins of the universe and of life, even if based on evidence that science can use, are still speculations.

That is just silly.
Might as well say "if undetectable pink graviton pixies aren't regulating gravity, then we think it might be because of the curvature of space-time".

It's completely ridiculous.

But if you want to say that a naturalistic answer is the only possible true one that is your decision.

 

[Valjean]

There is a lot more than that, if that can even be seen as archaeology of an exodus.

What archæology is that?

 

[Valjean]

It does not have to be verifiable if it helps to convince you there is a creator/designer. It serves as evidence for you.
You seem to be talking about what science requires for evidence and rejecting all evidence unless it complies, is verifiable. BUT you do not do that in your day to day life with so many things, you seem to be making an exception for evidence for god.

But what I see is theism and religious dogma being touted as ontological truth, used to police behavior, suppress ideas; support laws, social and political systems, and so on. Religious beliefs are indoctrinated, even mandated.
If religious mythology were treated as Æsops fables are, there would be no friction.

The religious make a truth claim. When they do this on a chat forum, especially in a debate room, claims and ideas will be questioned.

 

[Valjean]

Speculation about the origins of the universe and of life, even if based on evidence that science can use, are still speculations.

But the speculations are not the science, they are ideas that spark scientific investigation and tests. in order to advance the speculations to hypotheses, and even Which is why science investigates, gathers evidence and tests it. Speculations often lead to hypotheses and theories.

But if you want to say that a naturalistic answer is the only possible true one that is your decision.

It's the only testable or verifiable claim; the only claim distinguishable from fantasy. What can't be distinguished from fantasy may reasonably be treated as such.

 

[Valjean]

So is abiogenesis. Unobserved and anything alluding to the possibility of it is pure speculation ( meaning it happened by magic). Supposed magic anyway.

Chemical evolution is abiogenesis. It's not unobserved. The formation of self replicating molecules and cellular components are easily observed, and more complex proto-life has been created in more specialized labs. It's not mere speculation.

What does resemble speculation is the religious claim: abiogenesis by intentional magic. Unlike known, observable mechanisms this is entirely unevidenced.
Why do you so strongly believe the least likely claim?

 

[Brian2]

So you accept that genensis is allegorical, that planet earth is 4.5 billion years old and formed natural from the accretion disc of when the sun formed naturally through gravity, that simple life originated at least 3.8 billion years ago and then evolved over all those years into the many species we know today, that the biblical flood never happened, that there was no adam and eve, no magical garden with talking snakes or magical fruit, etc?

Is that what you are saying?

FYI: *I* don't have an "interpretation" of the magical claims of the bible. I just respond to the claims of people on this forum. Some are YECs, some are OECs, some are more sophisticated christians like @Dan From Smithville who see no need to deny scientific facts in favor of bible magic,....

So when I say that bible myths are demonstrably false, I'm responding to people who's "interpretation" might include:
- adam and eve were real people and the first humans
- genesis is literal
- the flood myth is literal
- exodus is literal
- the sun literally "stopped in the sky" for 3 days
- etc


Please don't play dumb with me.

I'm very much aware that the vast majority of christians sees these stories as just that: stories. These people don't feel the need to deny scientific facts in favor of a magical literal reading of their ancient religion. In the above post, I was not talking about their interpretation. Instead, I was talking about those who DO feel the need to be science-deniers in favor of ancient tales of magic.

Why would I not believe that a God who created the universe could not do miracles, stuff we do not understand or know how He did it. Magic if you want to be superstitious about it?
And how do you know what most Christians believe about the miracle stories in the Bible?
When it comes to Biblical interpretation, that can change over the years when humans find out facts that show us what the interpetation should be. eg if it is discovered that there was no world wide flood but was a large local flood, that is what the interpetation should be, a large local flood,,,,,,,,,,,,, and interestingly that is how the story can be translated.
When it come to what science has really found to be fact that is not set in concrete either even if skeptics might like to think it is. So imo I don't need to accept what science says about evolution as 100% fact, because imo it is not.
It is the naturalistic answer based on the presumption that God did not step in and do any of it. And there is no way that you or science can contradict that.
And no, guessing what probably happened based on the presumption that God did not do any of it, does not make for fact.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence which YOU YOURSELF think is worthless, because you are not a scientologist, you are not a hindu, you are not a muslim.

You reject all these experiences at face value.

You only accept those that agree with your a priori beliefs.
Guess what that's called?

It begins with "confi..." and ends with "bias".

Yes I have a confident bias for the Bible being true.
It sounds like it would be a stupid thing to accept all the religions of the world as being true.

 

[Brian2]

This sentence is a bit difficult to unravel but there is actually a reasonable argument from Daniel Dennett that 'why' questions, in the sense of "what for?" as opposed to "how come?", i.e. purpose, only arise because the idea of purpose itself is the result of evolution. This is explained in his book From Bacteria to Bach and Back (Chapter 3: On the Origin of Reasons). Unfortunately I can't find a succinct summary online. There is the long video (over an hour) below if you're at all interested or I'll try and explain it myself, but I'm not about to go to all the trouble if you don't have a genuine interest.

I don't think that the reasons that God has done things is a result of evolution, since God has not evolved. So God can tell us why we exist, what His purpose was in making us.

If it's not verifiable, how is it evidence? If you are verifying it in some non-scientific way, then how?

If it is not verifiable then it is just believed or rejected.

 

[Brian2]

Of course, but the fact that they are interpreted in so many different and contradictory ways and neither your nor anybody else seems to have any way to objective way to decide on a correct interpretation ("I'm right and all the rest are mistaken" aside) means that they are pretty much useless as evidence of anything.

True, but that does not stop us from believing what we believe.

 

[Brian2]

And postulating a creator just pushes the question of why stuff exists further back. It's useless at explaining existence, it just adds to the problem. A giant leap in the wrong direction.

If stuff exists, and there is a creator, then it exists because God created it and it exists for the reasons God had for creating it.
Without a creator then there is no purpose for our existence. We are not and then we are and then we are not.

 

[Brian2]

If you're looking for absolute proof about anything about the 'real world' you're on a fool's errand. It's simply impossible. Everything depends on some assumptions. Absolute proof exists only in mathematics and pure logic.

The best standard available is objective evidence that amounts to 'proof' in the legal sense of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Beyond reasonable doubt this was designed.

It's not a matter of verification, it is just self evident to me. That does not mean it is self evident to others, but the evidence for design is super powerful imo and from many things in nature.
It is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Brian2]

This is just your subjective assumption. "It's obvious innit?" is a dreadful argument.

That's fine, I know not all people see evidence for God in nature.

 

[Valjean]

Yes I have a confident bias for the Bible being true.
It sounds like it would be a stupid thing to accept all the religions of the world as being true.

How did you choose this particular one?

 

[ratiocinator]

If you don't believe God is speaking to you through a particular revelation then how are you going to believe the message is from any god/s?

The world is full of so called 'revelations', they can't all be real because they contradict each other. Why would I believe that a sane, just, and fair god would play silly games of hide-and-seek by hiding its revelation so it looks exactly like a baseless superstition?

It does not have to be verifiable if it helps to convince you there is a creator/designer. It serves as evidence for you.

That's not evidence, it's blind faith. Nothing is going to convince me of some unseen 'god' with no objective evidence at all. Why on earth would it convince anybody?

You seem to be talking about what science requires for evidence and rejecting all evidence unless it complies, is verifiable. BUT you do not do that in your day to day life with so many things, you seem to be making an exception for evidence for god.

What are you talking about? In day to day life we do things according to verifiable evidence (mainly repeated objective testing). People are far, far more rational in their attitudes in day to day life than they are when it comes to religion or anything else that is way outside their experiences. This is where myth and conspiracy theories live. As Stephen Pinker said (in his book Rationality):

People divide their worlds into two zones. One consists of the physical objects around them, the other people they deal with face to face, the memory of their interactions, and the rules and norms that regulate their lives. People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.​

​

The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose. Call it the mythology mindset.​

He then goes on to explain that many of us want to banish the mythology mindset entirely and base everything on actual evidence.

How?

You said the the evidence isn't verifiable and then you said that the "evidence in nature is pretty plain". It really can't be both.

Being on this forum is enough to confuse anyone but no I'm not confused.
There are plenty of gods and religions and spirit worlds but I just believe one of the many is correct.

Of course you do. So do many other believers on other religions or evidence-free beliefs. Yet you can (by your own admission) give us no objective reason whatsoever.

Maybe you are confused about which if any is the right one.
But they all point to humanity's search for more, for god and some of those religions have human experience of spirits.

I'm not confused at all. The simplest answer is not accept any of them until and unless they can provide some actual, objective evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Beyond reasonable doubt this was designed.

It's not a matter of verification, it is just self evident to me. That does not mean it is self evident to others, but the evidence for design is super powerful imo and from many things in nature.
It is beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, it's complex and intricate, but these don't equal intentional design or divine magic. The mechanisms behind the myriad steps of cellular evolution are natural and understood, and require no conscious or magical design.
Before concluding that a thing is impossible without magic, it's a good idea to review the explanations and evidence underlying alternative explanations.

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't think that the reasons that God has done things is a result of evolution, since God has not evolved. So God can tell us why we exist, what His purpose was in making us.

And....? The point is you seem to have nothing to back up your belief. Dennett has a detailed, rational argument that explains how thing came to be for something (have a purpose).

If it is not verifiable then it is just believed or rejected.

Rationally, it is rejected. If you choose to accept something that is not based on objective evidence then you are acting on blind faith or personal preference.

Beyond reasonable doubt this was designed.

It's not a matter of verification, it is just self evident to me. That does not mean it is self evident to others, but the evidence for design is super powerful imo and from many things in nature.
It is beyond reasonable doubt.

You can't just assert something into being 'beyond reasonable doubt'. You need to actually provide a reason why it's evidence for what you claim. The claim that you, personally can't see another explanation is irrelevant.

 

[Brian2]

It is not speculation. The research and discoveries is increasing scientific knowledge of abiogenesis over time. Like all sciences there remains unanswered questions, but science has determined many of the chemistry, environment and natural processes when and where abiogenesis took place, Yes in ancient tribal scriptures God said he did it by different names, but this is subjective belief with no science and provenance of claims.

Science just covers the physical and cannot speak about the spiritual aspect of life. Science cannot say that life is made up of the physical only even if that is the only evidence it is able to look into.
I suppose since Baha'i is a religion that covers a multitude of other religions, you have not got one single origins myth to say is true. If you said one is true that would be denying the others. Best for you just to deny them all including the Bible............ but not whatever Baha'u'llah says about it of course.