Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

You do realize that @Sgt, Pepper believes in evolution.

I figured as much. Why do you ask?

 

[Brian2]

This represents your claims of evidence for the existence of God. There is absolutely no objective evidence for the existence of God.

And yet we believe in God. Are there things that point to the existence of God for you?

Unverifiable evidence is not evidence as is the nature of your subjective claims.

The clinging to ancient tribal religions without science is based on blind faith.

Are you saying that you have a blind faith in the existence of God?
I don't complain about that if it is true. We can go beyond science in our analysis of things and don't need verifiable evidence to decide many things, such as whether a God exist or not.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence is some actual fact that is consistent with the proposition it's supposed to support and inconsistent with other, alternative propositions. Even better is a prediction based on your proposition, that isn't predicted by alternatives, that can then be tested after you produced it.

What on earth do you think "unverifiable evidence" even means?

Evidence in a general sense is something that can point to the truth of a proposition. If the evidence cannot be tested to see if it is true or not, that is what I mean by unverifiable evidence.
I might look at information being in Genes and see that as evidence for God. This is subjective to me and unable to be tested to see if it actually points objectively to God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

More vaguery that is neither here nor there.
What "speculation"? Ask any scientist about the origins of the universe and they will tell you it is "unknown".
Ask any creationist and they will say with outmost certainty and without blinking "my god of choice did it".

What speculation?

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

Strawman. Read what I actually wrote.

 

[Brian2]

Sure. That doesn't mean there are answers to those question or that the questions themselves are even valid.

True.

There is no reason to think that there is some other cosmic reason beyond the "how".

There are human experiences of the supernatural.

That is a contradiction in terms

The Bible is evidence for the Bible God, but God cannot be detected in any physical test because God is not part of the physical universe.

That is nonsensical. The non-existent by definition won't have evidence.
As they saying goes: the undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike

As I said there can be evidence for the undetectable.

If it's not verifiable, it's not proper evidence. Then, at best, it's just another claim.

Again you are talking science and not religious faith.

 

[Brian2]

Correct. So what would you say would be needed for us to believe such a conclusion that people draw from their experiences?

That would be different for different people.

I don't think I have ever denied that people have experiences.
I think that for the most part, when people claim to have had an experience, they are sincere about it.
For example, people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. I don't doubt they had an experience. In fact, many of them will even pass lie detector tests. They aren't making them up. But that doesn't mean they were actually abducted by aliens.

There's a whole range of far more probable explanations, which don't require the extremely improbable and implausible advanced entities from other planets beaming up people to perform sex experiments on them on board of their flying saucers.

And without objective verifiable evidence of such, why on earth would you give preference for the least likely explanations?

In summary: I don't doubt people's experiences. I question their conclusions / beliefs about them.

So a bunch of people saw Jesus alive a couple of days after He had been killed and the concluded He had risen from the dead. This was confirmed to them over a period of time.

Clearly you don't consider it very convincing evidence since you are not a scientologist.
If Tom Cruise were your flavor of christian, I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate for a second to make him your poster boy, holding him up as a prime example of evidence supporting your religion. Just like scientologists do.

It's sad that you don't see your double standard.
Meanwhile, you accuse me of holding a double standard and yet utterly fail to demonstrate it.

I don't think so, and I don't do that with others either, so that one is a strawman.
What double standard do I complain about. Surely you have a double standard somewhere. We probably all have.

No, there aren't.
For starters, you need claims for there to be dogma. It's requirement number 1.
There are no claims in atheism. Theism is the claim. Atheism is what you default to when you don't buy the claims of theism.

Yet there are of course commonalities in the corollaries that come from being atheist/skeptic.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evidence in a general sense is something that can point to the truth of a proposition.

How can it 'point to' the truth of a proposition unless it is consistent with it an not with alternatives?

If the evidence cannot be tested to see if it is true or not, that is what I mean by unverifiable evidence.

So, you'll accept something as 'evidence' even if you don't know if it is even true?

Tell you what, I've got this big bridge for sale in London, I can give you a good price....

I might look at information being in Genes and see that as evidence for God. This is subjective to me and unable to be tested to see if it actually points objectively to God.

It's not subjective at all. Genetic evidence unambiguously provides endless evidence for the truth of evolution that would, all by itself, without all the other evidence, 'prove' it beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence for a god in genetics.

It is consistent with evolution and inconstant with direct design. It doesn't falsify many versions of god (nor does it support them) but it does falsify a god that didn't use evolution, unless said god is actually trying to deceive us.

BTW, The information in genes comes from the environments that they have been exposed to during their evolutionary development.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

You already know the answer to that question.
For the same reason you don't believe undetectable graviton pixies regulate gravity.
Or that people get abducted by aliens and have weird sex experiments performed on them while on board of flying saucers.
Or that sea storms are caused by Poseidon.

And how do you know what most Christians believe about the miracle stories in the Bible?

Polls.
Next to polls, also the "official" stance of denominations, assuming followers of denominations actually follow the beliefs of said denominations.
Catholics, for example, are not supposed to take genesis literally. That alone already accounts for more then half of christians.

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.

I love how you just admit how your religion is playing an endless game of "catch up" with science.
So "bible says X, so therefor X" until science demonstrates Y instead, and then you go back and "re-interprete" the bible and claim it says Y also.

IOW, science > bible.
Then why bother with the bible at all for explanations about the world / universe?

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.

Your "opinion" is irrelevant to science.

It is the naturalistic answer based on the presumption that God did not step in and do any of it.

It is an answer based on evidence.
It isn't any more based on a "presumption that god did not step in" then gravitation theory is based on the presumption that there are no "undetectable graviton pixies regulating gravity".

The fact is that evolution demonstrably happened, happens and continues to happen and it is a genetic fact that species share ancestry.
The fact is also that the mechanism detailed by evolution theory is sufficient to account for the facts.
The fact is also that there is zero evidence for any magic being a part of it.
The fact is also that there is no need for such at all.

There is no "presumption" here.
The "presumption" is entirely on your end.... that a god was involved is merely your a priori religious belief, for which you have ZERO evidence.

And there is no way that you or science can contradict that.

I just did. Your take on it is simply incorrect. The exact opposite is true.

And no, guessing what probably happened based on the presumption that God did not do any of it, does not make for fact.

There is no such presumption. Again, the presumption is entirely on your end.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Bible is evidence for the Bible God...

Are you even being serious? I've read it, it's an inconsiderate, self-contradictory mess.

 

[Brian2]

How do you know? How do we determine the "correct" interpretation? How did you determine that someone else's interpretation is "wrong?"

How about the flood story that you've interpreted as a "local" flood when clearly what is being described in that story is a global flood?

I don't know. We all just believe what we believe. If someone believes a certain interpretation of the Bible just because that is the interpetation that can be debunked, that is just a play interpetation, and shows a desire to debunk the Bible than to see if the Bible is true.
I do it in the opposite direction. If what appear to be facts means that the Bible is wrong I look for a different interpretation. If there is none them the Bible is just wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I have a confident bias for the Bible being true.

That is, until science demonstrates that it isn't. Then, by your own acknowledgement, you go back and "re-interpret" it so that you can claim it matches the facts.
And when you can't do that, you simply deny the science.

Meanwhile, you reject the exact evidence you hold up for your beliefs when it is offered for other faith-based beliefs.
And then you accuse me of having "double standards".

I really don't understand how you don't see the hypocracy in all of this.

It sounds like it would be a stupid thing to accept all the religions of the world as being true.

Right. You just acknowledged that the quality of the "evidence" you hold up for your beliefs isn't proper evidence at all, since you happily reject the exact same kind of evidence when it doesn't match your a priori beliefs.

You accused ME of having double standards. I just demonstrated that the opposite is true.
I value objective evidence. I accept objective evidence regardless of it matching my a priori beliefs or not.

In contrast, you value subjective evidence. But you only value it if it matches your a priori beliefs. You ignore it / dismiss it at face value when it concerns stuff that doesn't match your a priori beliefs.

Who's holding double standards, really?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Based on WHAT?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

If there is gravity, and undetectable graviton pixies exist, then there is gravity because those pixies regulate it.

Without a creator then there is no purpose for our existence. We are not and then we are and then we are not.

So what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Argument from incredulity

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

The only facts in science are the actual, repeatable observations or experimental results. Scientific theories are well supported by facts but they never became facts.

So imo I don't need to accept what science says about evolution as 100% fact, because imo it is not.

The general conclusion that evolution happened (and continues to happen) is way beyond reasonable doubt but, of course, there are always new things we can find out and some details might have to be changed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidence in a general sense is something that can point to the truth of a proposition. If the evidence cannot be tested to see if it is true or not, that is what I mean by unverifiable evidence.

How is it evidence then, in that case?

I might look at information being in Genes and see that as evidence for God.

How is that evidence?
Don't just assert it, explain it.

This is subjective to me and unable to be tested to see if it actually points objectively to God.

IOW, it's not evidence... it's just personal opinion based on nothing but incredulity / ignorance and biased through a priori religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are human experiences of the supernatural.

No. There are claims of such, which is not the same.
And even if I were to accept these claims, it doesn't follow that therefor there is some cosmic purpose beyond the "how" either.

The Bible is evidence for the Bible God

Is the quran evidence for Allah?
Is the book of the dead evidence for Anubis?
Is the Iliad evidence for Zeus?
Is dianetics evidence for your inner Thetan?

The answer to all these questions is NO.
These are the CLAIMS of jawhe, allah, anubis, zeus, inner thetans,....
To say they are evidence for themselves is the most circular fallacy you can utter.

, but God cannot be detected in any physical test because God is not part of the physical universe.

Neither are the undetectable graviton pixies. Or inner thetans. Or Anubis.
But you don't believe in those, do you?

Your double standard is showing again.

As I said there can be evidence for the undetectable.

Yes, you claimed this multiple times.
Claiming it doesn't make it true.

Again you are talking science and not religious faith.

Faith isn't evidence. Faith is what you need when you wish to believe something when you do not have evidence.

 

[Brian2]

How and why?

How did you determine design in the first place?

I was talking about this video:

Dr Tydell narrates bacteria animation - Google Search

I just intuited design. You might call it incredulity that it happened any other way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That would be different for different people.

I asked YOU. I asked "what would YOU say would be needed..."

So a bunch of people saw Jesus alive a couple of days after He had been killed and the concluded He had risen from the dead. This was confirmed to them over a period of time.

Many more people claim to have been abducted by aliens and had sex experiments performed on them on board of flying saucers.
And contrary to your jesus claims, these are first hand accounts of people that are even still alive that you can actually go and meet today and talk to and who pass lie detector tests.

Claims are a dime a dozen.

I don't think so, and I don't do that with others either, so that one is a strawman.

Funny. YOU JUST DID EXACTLY THAT with your claim of people who supposedly saw jesus after he supposedly died.

Yet there are of course commonalities in the corollaries that come from being atheist/skeptic.

I can only repeat myself.
Atheism is not a claim. Theism is the claim. Atheism is a stance on the claims of theism.

 

[Brian2]

Then it's not evidence.

Then you don't know what evidence is.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evidence#:~:text=Evidence%20is%20anything%20that%20you,true%20or%20has%20really%20happened.