Life From Dirt?

[Kenny]

There is no such thing as a "God theory". There isn't even anything that could be called a god hypothesis. The different hypothesis for abiogenesis at least propose a mechanism - the god story just assumes that life was poofed into existence by magic.

I think there is a God hypothesis... as there are many hypothesis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Faith is unevidenced or poorly evidenced belief. It's truth value is nil.
Skeptics generally don't claim to have faith, religious or otherwise. A skeptic, by definition, wants evidence before she believes.

Have it both ways? You can have evidence based knowledge, or unevidenced faith. Without evidence, how do you differentiate truth from fiction?

No, there are 2 kinds of skeptics. Your kind and the the general kind who doubts even evidence as a method and point out the limits. You are the first kind and I am the latter.
So if I don't have evidence for something I do, I do something else. And indeed for a part of it, I use faith.
"... Philosophically interesting forms of skepticism claim that we do not know propositions which we ordinarily think we do know. ..."

Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

So when you claim X is Y, I simply ask how do you know that and for knowledge is Y, I ask how do you know that.
So here is the problem of the everyday world for most simple way to do it.
Someone: I know X is Y and not Z and act accordingly.
Someone else: I know X is Z and not Y and act accordingly.
Me: One of them don't know, so I check if I don't need to know for X and act anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think there is a God hypothesis... as there are many hypothesis.

Yeah, and I think differently for a different God.

 

[Kenny]

That's why hypotheses have to be falsifiable; it's easier to prove that something is false than that it's true. If there is no potential observation or experiment that can prove that your claim is false, then how much more difficult would it be to prove that it's true? A lot. The answer is a lot. It would be a lot more difficult. Nigh impossible, even.

That may be true with today's science and man's capacity. It certainly took decades between believing in a black hole and seeing a black hole. Of course, creating a black hole in experimentation may take many more years.

Man created Dolly but 2 centuries ago it would have been classified as "nigh impossible" but a reality today.

If all matter consists of vibrations and light and sound are vibrations, at least the creation story is consistent with science, IMU.

 

[Heyo]

I think there is a God hypothesis... as there are many hypothesis.

Colloquially, yes. But a scientific hypothesis is a formal proposal of an explanation with, at least implicit, ways to test it. God has never been proposed in science as an explanation for abiogenesis.

 

[Kenny]

Colloquially, yes. But a scientific hypothesis is a formal proposal of an explanation with, at least implicit, ways to test it. God has never been proposed in science as an explanation for abiogenesis.

What I am saying is, it is only "non-testable" in today's capacity of science and understanding. At this point, no hypothesis for creation is testable and reproducible. God has be proposed by some scientists and simply rejected by others.

 

[Audie]

I think there is a God hypothesis... as there are many hypothesis.

Of course. We could have a Batboy and his
secret moon lab hypothesis.

Sort of. An actual hypothesis needs at least
one datum point.
That's the problem calling God a hypothesis
let alone a theory.
Not one fact.

 

[Audie]

What I am saying is, it is only "non-testable" in today's capacity of science and understanding. At this point, no hypothesis for creation is testable and reproducible. God has be proposed by some scientists and simply rejected by others.

Do youvmean creation, or Creation?

The first is open to investigation, the other is not.

 

[Kenny]

Of course. We could have a Batboy and his
secret moon lab hypothesis.

Sort of. An actual hypothesis needs at least
one datum point.
That's the problem calling God a hypothesis
let alone a theory.
Not one fact.

As I mentioned before, matter consists of vibrations... is that a fact?

 

[Brian2]

I see a lot of people that *claim* there is evidence, but when it comes to actually producing it, they never do. Usually, what they offer is irrleevant to demonstrating existence.


So now we are in the situation of figuring out what is and what is not evidence for a God. Would you care to give an example?

How is my evidence going to be evidence for you if you do not believe it is evidence?

 

[Brian2]

OK, and how do you discriminate that from self-delusion?

I do what I am told and see the results. Sometimes it is self-delusion and sometimes not imo.

 

[Brian2]

From what I can see, faith is irresponsible: it is a dereliction of the duty to think through things.

The faith of some people is like that.

 

[Polymath257]

How is my evidence going to be evidence for you if you do not believe it is evidence?

How can it be evidence if it is personal?

I do what I am told and see the results. Sometimes it is self-delusion and sometimes not imo.

As I see it, you do what you tell yourself to do and you see the results.

The faith of some people is like that.

I would say all faith is like that.

 

[Audie]

As I mentioned before, matter consists of vibrations... is that a fact?

1. Your response is 100% unresponsive

2. Your grossly oversimplified way of expressing
a concept in theoretical particle physics is not a fact.

In science, the proper use of the word " fact" is
restricted to such as, " its a fact that this is my data.

Sciencevdoes notvdomproof at all, and mattes carelessly spoken of elsewhere of as " facts" or " proof" are in fact what is properly spoken if in science as probability.

Answer to your Q is, again, no.

 

[Brian2]

He asked, "What empirical, objective evidence do you have, that we could all perceive?" Is that your way of answering that you have no such evidence to produce?

Yes, and of saying that there is other sorts of evidence.

He wrote, "Lack of belief in the not-objectively-evidenced is the epitome of reason." He has described the fundamental tenet of skepticism - no idea should be believed without justification by valid reasoning applied to relevant evidence. I can't think of an idea that has done more to improve the human condition than that one. It was the downfall of kings, priests, and charlatans everywhere.

That sounds like a good principle.

Yes, but that's not what skeptics do.

This seems to be an impossible idea to conceive for many believers posting on RF - the difference between unbelief (not believing) and disbelief (believing not). I have yet to read one such poster, following an aha moment, write, "OK, now I see what you mean. There's a position that is neither believing something is true nor believing it is false called 'I don't know,' but I never saw that before today."

I know the difference and can usually see the difference in what a person says.
The atheist position is not always "I lack belief", but that is a bit like feigned innocence for some. "Oh not me, I just don't know."

Your rules of reason are not those of academia and philosophy and do contradict the rules of reason. It is not reasonable by that system of reckoning to believe anything on the basis of something not being known to be impossible.

That is not a reason to believe. That is just showing that it is not unreasonable to believe anything that is possible.

Not if the belief isn't a sound conclusion derived from that evidence using the rules of reasoning (inference). People use the word reasonable to mean that some belief feels right to them, but that's not what a logician means by reason.

I'm not a logician.

I don't doubt that people have experiences that they interpret as communicating with spirits, but I have no reason to believe that they are correct and a very good one to think that they aren't. I was fooled that way once myself, misunderstanding what was later revealed to be the euphoria generated by a charismatic initial preacher following my conversion to Christianity in the early seventies, which I understood as the Holy Spirit. I left this congregation following discharge from the Army, returned to California, and tried about a half-dozen lifeless congregations, which was the evidence I needed to see that there was no Holy Spirit involved, who would have followed me to California - just a gifted religious orator.

Now, I understand others telling me that gods speak to them to be experiencing something created by their brains and misunderstood as a received, external voice.

I can understand that way you look at those experiences now. We all want to feel the Holy Spirit and be able to hear God clearly. Some stories seem to show God's guidance in the lives of people in certain situations.
Mostly it can be a battle to believe but I have found that God gives enough encouragement for me to continue so far.
I know some people don't find that and lose their faith however.

Not inferior people, but rather, people relying on an inferior method for deciding what is true about the world. I went through that myself when I rejected faith, meaning considered it an inferior epistemology, and returned to skepticism and empiricism. I doubted my faith-based beliefs and considered the skeptics, to whose ranks I had just returned, correct.

Faith isn't a path to truth. It's a path to unjustified belief, which are guesses and thus rarely the truth as judged by empirical standards (correlation theory of truth, verificationism).

Faith can be unjustified guesses, true.
But faith in an invisible God with a Book that is not verified does take a different type of evidence and verification than study of the material universe with science does.

 

[Brian2]

How can it be evidence if it is personal?

It is evidence for me, for my faith, it does not need to be the same evidence others have or see for their faith. Sometimes it is a personal experience.

As I see it, you do what you tell yourself to do and you see the results.

Yes I guess that is true when the results show me I was not being led by God.

I would say all faith is like that.

I think it is possible to be like that at times for most people, but that is the people who are being irresponsible and they would be so with or without the faith probably.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think there is a God hypothesis... as there are many hypothesis.

By definition a hypothesis, like theories, require objective verifiable evidence to falsify, There is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence of God(s). Belief is a subjective theological/philosophical and/or a personal matter, The other question is: 'Which God(s) is the true and only God considering the many conflicting diverse beliefs in the ancient tribal history of humanity that claim their God is the only true God?'

 

[Audie]

It is evidence for me, for my faith, it does not need to be the same evidence others have or see for their faith. Sometimes it is a personal experience.



Yes I guess that is true when the results show me I was not being led by God.



I think it is possible to be like that at times for most people, but that is the people who are being irresponsible and they would be so with or without the faith probably.

Are you even aware that you keep making things up?

 

[shunyadragon]

As I mentioned before, matter consists of vibrations... is that a fact?

If you are offering the existence of God as a hypothesis as a basis for your belief, your belief is in trouble.

Fact? Please do not misrepresent the scientific view of what is 'facts' in science. There are, of course, many unanswered questions concerning the Quantum Mechanics nature of matter and energy, but assertions of 'arguing from ignorance' does not contribute to a dialogue as what is the nature if theories and hypothesis. Yes, the hypothesis of Quantum Mechanics nature of matter and energy can be observed and to a degree falsified by scientific methods based on observed 'facts,' but unfortunately the existence of God(s) cannot be remotely falsified as a hypothesis,

 

[Brian2]

Are you even aware that you keep making things up?

Ooooo that's not true!
Well maybe just a little bit.
But what am I meant to do in this sort of discussion, post a link or a quote.
I say what is true in my experience or my thinking or.............. something.