SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Cool. Can you walk us through this reasoning?It is the only reasonable answer imo.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cool. Can you walk us through this reasoning?It is the only reasonable answer imo.
The point is, there are first-person, eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot, UFOs, aliens, &c, by living witnesses.Are you saying that people give testimony about aliens, bigfoot etc and actually know what aliens and bigfoot etc look like etc or assuming they have the experience, it may not have anything to do with aliens etc.
It points that way to you because it conforms to your existing narrative. It's both a confirmation bias and an argument from incredulity.It's theology for dummies like me. I see things sometimes and can see that it points to the existence of a designer God.
For good reasons, which they/I explain. You've yet to counter any of this.Then intelligent people come along and say, "That's ridiculous, that is a logical fallacy or two and you need to be able to explain it or it is irrational and you should stop believing."
Irreducible complexity is an ancient trope that comes up over and over and always produces eye rolls by skeptics. It's been debunked so thoroughly and often it's a wonder theists don't just drop it, but, apparently, they've either not seen the alternative explanations and examples, or are just ignoring them.I was referring to irreducible complexity. Sometimes things in biology will not work unless fully functional in a human body.
We're not influenced by belief in science, that would be an argument from authority. We're influenced by the evidence the science has uncovered.And you have your personal opinion based on your belief in science and answers that it may have come up with,
If those answers are not testable it's not even within the purview of science.even if those answers are not testable and nobody knows if those answers were what happened.
Clearly you don't understand what science is or how it works. You seem to see it as some sort of alternative religion. Educated guesses might suggest a line of inquiry, but hypotheses rely on solid evidence, and theories have eliminated any guesswork.IOW it is educated guesses based on what might be able to happen through natural processes. But hey it's called science so who cares about little details like that when it is more fun to attack people who believe in a creator?
We want our peers to criticize us. We want them to tear into out hypotheses like a terrier on a rat. It's part of the process.We don't want to look silly to our peers. Science, science all the way, even if it might be wrong.
Science includes formal processes for correcting profound wrongs.Science can be profoundly wrong when wanting to look into the past however, and because of the nature of science (looking at the physical universe) and the nature of God (a Spirit being) all science can do is find physical answers, and skeptics who have something against faith in God, will gladly have faith in that science that is just educated guesses.
No. Our evidence is demonstrable. If others see something different, they should explain why.It's a matter of personal perception. You have your world view also and what you see is evidence for what you believe
But in your opinion it seems that if others look at the same evidence and don't see what you see then that means that the evidence that you use is evidence for nothing.
Corollaries? Explain, please. We believe the evidence. We don't bother with evidence of no god. We simply see no evidence, so withhold belief, just as we do with leprechauns. Until there's some evidence a thing exists, why would anyone believe in it?Yes it's a set of common beliefs that skeptics/atheists have (about the Bible and evolution and other things) that may even be themselves called evidence that there is no God instead of corrolaries that come from being skeptic/atheist, but which when looked at, do not show that the Bible is wrong or that God does not exist. But they do go hand in hand with skepticism/atheism.
I picked up the idea of corrolaries from a skeptic/atheist I was talking to one day.
Evolution HAS been shown to be factual. It's easily observable, and there is voluminous, consilient evidence.What I am not saying is that since evolution has not been shown to be factual, that therefore God did it. I am saying that since evolution has not been shown to be factual all the way through therefore if you believe that it is factual all the way through, then it is a form of faith that is not justified except in your own imagination and world view.
"Faith" is unjustified belief; belief with little or no evidence. How do you justify it?So my faith in a creator gives me reason to say that there is a "why".
The enlightenment and the "how" question also seems to have been the result of faith in a God who gave laws that could be understood.
Most books have history, but the Bible's demonstrably wrong, as for fulfilled prophecy, most claims are vague and ambiguous attempts to fit a passage into an existing narrative.The Bible does not look like a baseless superstition to me, it has history and fulfilled prophecy on it's side.
You work it out.
Because it's not real evidence. I could find equally good evidence in C.S. Lewis' Space trilogy.Skeptics don't seem to care about the Biblical evidence and ignore it.
The "design" is explicable as the natural result of the laws and constants of chemistry and physics. There is neither need for, nor evidence of, magic as an alternative.Design and existence of the universe and life are both evidence, as is the Bible story in it's multiple books.
I thought about it. Ty for your thoughtful response. I can't say how exactly the organisms came about. I usually refer to a video camera as illustration. In other words the answer is by scientists that it took a looonnngg time. We weren't there, those organisms like fish, snakes, monkeys, etc who were there before humans I am told did not need to explain things according to the comments I see here. No video capture of morphing cells turning to the various related species. Only speculation as far as I discern. Fossils are not proof of evolution although they are evidence that something existed. So again, I cast my vote in favor of the Genesis account. "God did it." How He did it has not been revealed to me. Thanks again. One more thing...if there were videos of the changes from let's say the Unknown Common Ancestor of humans, monkeys, etc. that would be evidence. But there is none. Now watch.For me it is at least plain that God designed the system that enabled adaptation to the various environments. Just what happened after that, I don't know exactly, but it happened as the Bible tells us imo but also imo that does not have to me special creation of each life form or type of plant or animal all the way through.
That seems evident to me also. I believe deformities come about from bad environment. I also believe God will straighten it all out in life.To me life forms look designed and even simple life forms, cells have things in them that are molecular machines with jobs to do and which would have had to exist fully functional from the beginning.
So you reject thinking as a useful assessment tool? Why, then, argue with those who do think? Just accept whatever feels right and familiar.It is not really about thinking and the so called rules of logic that some like to place onto others.
If you want me to obey your rules of logic I won't,,,,,,,,,,,,, or maybe I can't,,,,,,,,,,, or maybe believing in God and Jesus is just not logical.
We should agree to disagree.
But faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. It's epistemically useless. It will tell you nothing about anything.It is good to combine faith with reason and look at the evidence for each belief.
People justify their own beliefs, as do you. Neither you nor I have verifiable beliefs about God however.
Yes, they do look designed -- but they're not, and the mechanisms that created them are known, familiar and observable.To me life forms look designed and even simple life forms, cells have things in them that are molecular machines with jobs to do and which would have had to exist fully functional from the beginning.
So you accept initial impressions as accurate? Why not look into the actual evidence?That seems evident to me also. I believe deformities come about from bad environment. I also believe God will straighten it all out in life.
What is reasonable about it?It is the only reasonable answer imo.
This is, at best, a variation of "irreducible complexity", a notion that's been disproven a long time ago. Not that it was actually needed to disprove it, mind you... it could in fact also just be dismissed at face value as at the heart of it sits the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance.To me life forms look designed and even simple life forms, cells have things in them that are molecular machines with jobs to do and which would have had to exist fully functional from the beginning.
Not all eyes have a blind spot. Some, like those of cephalopods, are more sophisticated than ours.This is, at best, a variation of "irreducible complexity", a notion that's been disproven a long time ago. Not that it was actually needed to disprove it, mind you... it could in fact also just be dismissed at face value as at the heart of it sits the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
For example:
The idea that "things have to be fully functional from the start" in the sense of having to have to function it has "today", is a myth that you'll only find in creationist propaganda. Asserted without evidence or proper argumentation also, off course.
Such is a statement that exposed profound ignorance of how evolution and evolutionary development actually works.
Consider the evolution of the eye... from the first light sensitive cells, giving the organism only a sense of light / dark / shade all the way to a modern eye (with blind spot, lol) giving the organism high definition color vision.
I know.Not all eyes have a blind spot. Some, like those of cephalopods, are more sophisticated than ours.
Our color vision relies on three, possibly four, photorecreptor types. Many creatures have a much broader visible spectrum. A Mantis shrimp has 12 photoreceptor types.
Human eyes have both limitations and "design errors." God must have been drinking the day He designed them.
Empiricism gets you nowhere in relation to God unless you think God is a part of the universe and can be tested.
I am talking about people who claim that unverifiable evidence is not evidence.
These people want verifiable evidence all the time to assess reality and test it, so reality for them is usually limited to this universe, but they also speculate about other possibilities but ignore the evidence for a designer and God who has revealed Himself to us because they don't like the idea of faith even if that faith is not blind faith.
There is a lot more than that, if that can even be seen as archaeology of an exodus.