Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it all works with known mechanisms and forces etc but that is not the same as saying that it could design and build itself.



It's an argument from incredulity. Well no, it is just incredulity that it designed and made itself.
There is no answer to the question except speculation and basically there are 2 possible answers, God designed it or it designed and made itself.
We seem to choose different answers and both choices seem to be from incredulity.
Maybe you choose neither and your answer is "I don't know" and you are just criticising me for having a view one way or the other.

What "design"? Life shows signs that it is not designed. You do not get to assume design. No one on the science side is making an argument from incredulity. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[Brian2]

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 doesn't look like a baseless superstition to me. It has history and fulfilled prophecy on it's side

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 want verifiable evidence for a God. What is verifiable evidence for a God in your opinion?

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.

We do things based on our feelings a lot of the time, not on our evidence based weighing of options.

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.

We both can see what I call evidence for God, but I cannot verify that it is evidence for God. That part is self evident if you can see it.

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.

I can point to nature and fulfilled prophecy in the Bible as evidence for God and historicity of the gospel and fulfilled prophecy as evidence for Jesus.
It is not proof but I can reason the truth of God and Jesus from that.

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.

It sounds like you don't want to go on the journey of finding God and His Kingdom.

 

[Brian2]

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).

There is just a purpose that people might assign to things unless there is a purpose beyond that, the purpose they exist, as given by a creator who does things for a reason.

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.

As I said, we all see the same things (what I call the evidence) but not all of us see it as evidence for God. It is evidence to me, so my faith is not blind faith,,,,,,,,,,, I have my reasons, my confirmation.

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.

It's beyond reasonable doubt to me. It is irrelevent to you.
I keep saying as much over and over and over and over and skeptics keep coming back and telling me how stupid I am for not having verifiable and objective evidence for God. But for me it is clear.
I have a reasonable belief imo whether people accept that it is reasonable or not.

 

[Brian2]

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.

The whole idea of a long molecule storing information and using it is evidence for a designer God imo. The genetic system for adaptation to environments was designed imo and in your opinion, without evidence that it was not designed, it was not designed.
How does something like that come about naturally?
Genesis does not say that God did not use evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course it all works with known mechanisms and forces etc but that is not the same as saying that it could design and build itself.
It's an argument from incredulity. Well no, it is just incredulity that it designed and made itself.

Science does not claim that anything designed and created itself. The first life came about in the first suitable environment in hydrothermal vents by Natural Laws and natural processes.

The problem of incredulity is the case for intentional ignorance of science in fundamentalist Christianity.

There is no answer to the question except speculation and basically there are 2 possible answers, God designed it or it designed and made itself.

Neither choice is feasible by the present evidence of science. It is possible by religious belief the God Create our physical existence, but again regardless life cannot create itself whether God exists or not,

We seem to choose different answers and both choices seem to be from incredulity.
Maybe you choose neither and your answer is "I don't know" and you are just criticising me for having a view one way or the other.

The fundamental objective evidence has determined that life came about naturally. If God exists God Created naturally.

 

[shunyadragon]

The whole idea of a long molecule storing information and using it is evidence for a designer God imo. The genetic system for adaptation to environments was designed imo and in your opinion, without evidence that it was not designed, it was not designed.
How does something like that come about naturally?

By natural laws and natural processes in an ideal environment in hydrothermal vents.

Genesis does not say that God did not use evolution.

Good thing you agree it is imo on your part, because there is no evidence for ID. Yes it is possible that if God exists he Created and evolved life as the evidence has determined. This way there would not be the conflicts between ancient religious claims and science.

 

[Brian2]

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.

That's great. You have no idea how wonderful it is to find someone who sees me as normal, just like you, except for my little blemish, my belief in the God of the Bible and Jesus etc. I don't see any reason to believe in graviton pixies or Poseidon etc, just like you, so I don't believe in them until I get better evidence.

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.

It does not really matter if Catholics take Genesis literally or not, it's no big deal.

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?

We don't go along with everything that the changing answers of science say. Interestingly imo science is showing the Bible to be correct. But there is always going to be differences imo.

Your "opinion" is irrelevant to science.

Yes.

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.

There are a few options that various Christians have used.
Some dig their heels in and say that evolution does not prove one type of animal changed to another. This is true, but there is an implication in science that it could happen and so some Christians go down this path and agree with all of evolution as a means God used to make the different kinds of life.
I just think that science is partly right about evolution but goes too far because basically nobody was there and science just presumes that it all happened naturally.
But none of this has anything to do with the origins of the universe or life.

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

It cannot be proven that God was not involved along the way and of course at the beginning.
You must be imagining something that you did not do.

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

Sorry, that is just a mistake on your part. Science wants to look into the past but does not know that a God was not involved or that pixies were not involved. Science just presumes naturalistic forces every step of the way.
It gives a rough outline of what might have happened but the details are not and cannot be known.

 

[Subduction Zone]

t doesn't look like a baseless superstition to me. It has history and fulfilled prophecy on it's side

No, it doesn't. One has to be highly biased to say that there is fulfilled prophecy. You need to apply the same rules to the Bible that you would rationally apply to others. When one does that the prophecies fail.

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]​

For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

Biblical prophecies

There are numerous Biblical prophecies, some vaguely fulfilled, others strangely unfulfilled. Of course, like the Bible, the Quran also contains what its followers maintain are fulfilled prophesies. Christians tend to find these unconvincing or silly — which is coincidentally the attitude which...

rationalwiki.org

By the way, Muslims make the same claims for the Quran. And theirs fail for the same reasons. Except of course you would have to switch out "Quran" for "Bible" in the above criteria.

 

[Brian2]

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

There are mistakes in the Bible imo but I think you must be reading a different book to come to that conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't go along with everything that the changing answers of science say. Interestingly imo science is showing the Bible to be correct. But there is always going to be differences imo.

Then you have not studied either very well. Yes, science changes. That is an asset. The Bible cannot change even though it s wrong again and again and again. Instead apologists have to lie for the Bible. If you look at how science changes you will see that it is continually getting more and more accurate. The Bible is just wrong. It cannot improve.

 

[Brian2]

Based on WHAT?

Different people either reject it or accept it as evidence for God based on whether they agree or not. I see the genetic system as evidence for God and other people say BS, and cannot see any further than the chemistry. That is like seeing a working car and rejecting that it needed a designer because you can see how it works.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Oh dear, I dare to see problems in the science and that it can be wrong, and Oh dear, I see that our interpretation of the Bible has been wrong because the science over the years has been wrong.

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".

What evidence is that?

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

Oh dear, now I'm being a hypocrite because I believe something instead of believing nothing.
The truth is that I try to offer evidence for my faith that you might have a hope of seeing (but don't anyway) but that the real reason I believe in Jesus is because I have been drawn to Jesus by God.

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?

It must be me. I must be holding double standards, I should just believe every contradictory belief there is or believe none of them except the place that objective evidence might lead me eventually, if it ever does.

 

[Brian2]

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

Now you're getting it.

So what?

Just saying.

 

[Brian2]

Argument from incredulity

Yep that's it.

 

[Brian2]

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.


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.

So the opinions of science about evolution theory are almost set in concrete. Is it any wonder that skeptics can't see that science cannot tell us whether God was involved directly in designing and making life forms.

 

[Brian2]

How is it evidence then, in that case?

It is evidence because it points to the truth of something. It is a matter sometimes of belief in a story or being incredulous that something could happen without a designer.

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

It's one of those things that needs an operating system that works or not, nothing in between.

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

If you say so. I prefer to see it as accepting God and His Kingdom as a little child does.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Well yes, it's no good without belief that they might be true experiences. But it's a start and it can lead to finding a cosmic purpose.

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.

With faith in whatever deity it is, all these things can become evidence for that deity.

 

[Brian2]

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

Yet there are commonalities in the corrollaries that come from being atheist/skeptic.

 

[Brian2]

The evidence shows that this is not true.
The evidence shows that when you feel like you can NOT "re-interprete" the bible, then you assume the facts to be wrong.
As you do with solid established science like evolution theory. Argueably the best supported theory in literally all of science.

What I said is that if what appears to be facts shows that the Bible is wrong then I have to just accept that. But as I have also said, the full scientific theory of evolution is not known to be factual all the way through, and in fact it is not known if a God or pixies were involved in the establishment of different life forms or of the system of Genetics etc.

 

[Brian2]

Inuition is like common sense.
It only gets you so far. It can only deal with things you already know and understand. It can't tell you anything about what you don't know and understand.
When improperly applied, it will only result in false beliefs. Like it does in this case.

But of course you don't know that common sensing design is wrong do you?