Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

Why should you say that? The atheist has not come across any evidence of God or soul, therefore, the person negates it. Well, that way even the FGM (and so many other imaginary critters) could exist.

No. God is not a liar, since he is imaginary. IMHO, it is those who claim to be God-sent prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis, and their followers who expanded the stories, who are liars. They created stories to fool people.

If I may, although there can be controversy from others on this subject, the Bible indicates that we ARE souls.
Genesis 2:7 helps to clarify this when it says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." So we see that man BECAME a living SOUL. Not that a soul was placed in his body, but that he became a living soul. There's more, but I just wanted to say this. Much depends upon translation, that one is the famous King James Version. It depends on the Hebrew and putting it all together. Hope this helps.

 

[We Never Know]

DNA does not work in any solvent except water. Why is that and what is the significance? DNA evolved in water with water always the majority component of life, defining natural chemical selection at the nanoscale. Water is not tuned to DNA, DNA is tuned to water, allowing DNA to work properly.

If you mix water and oil and agitate, you will get an emulation; chaos. If are allow this chaos to settle, order will appear. We will slowly get bubble and two phases; layers, which will separate out. This reversal is not random. Water allows order to appear from apparent chaos of the emulsion. We need to add energy to make the two phases of water and oil, random; an emulation. Water wants to lower the surface tension and shed this added energy, and in doing so allows order to reappear.

Life is made primarily of water and organics, with the majority component; water, forcing the organics to phase out into various distinct organic phases; organelles. Once phospholipids molecules formed in water, there was only one way to minimize surface tension, between the water and "this oil". We call this a lipid bi-layered membrane. It still happens every time, because the dice are loaded by water. The casino science odds makers do not yet understand how water loads dice and counts cards. This must seem like magic to them.

DNA was a logical consequence of the interaction of the organics of life (oil) and water. When water forces any oil to phase separate, it does so in a way to minimize surface tension, by minimizing surface contact area. A sphere is a minimal surface for any volume; bubbles. However much we minimize, the remaining contact surface area is an energized surface. How does water deal with this last bit of energy? An energized surface has extra energy for change, with the goal to lower and lower surface tension. Organics can form endless combinations; variety of molecules, with some better for lowering the residual surface tension; water selects protein for the membrane.

DNA is a very hydrated molecule, with lots of water attached. There is a double helix of water in the major and minor grooves of the DNA or organic double helix. DNA sort of defines a state where organic and water become almost one, in terms of shared potentials. The DNA is soluble in water, but it is also a very large macromolecule that also appears to be insoluble, since it does not disappear, like salt or sugar, due to its huge size. It is sort of the logical result of the surface tension of the 3-D sphere; oil bubble, flattening al the way a 1-D line; almost minimal surface tension, where they become one composite thing.

When protein fold and pack, to minimize surface tension in the water, the hydrophobic cores are isolated from the water. All the water will see are the protein surface area. But DNA can stay fully exposed, unless you add packing protein, thereby adding extra surface tension in water, so the DNA-protein composite has to fold; bubble up. Unpacking the chromosomes, allows the naked DNA, in part or full, to be an extension of the water, so the DNA can be become integrated to all the organics via the continuity of the surface tension in the cellular water; integrated organic cellular differentiation.

Being DNA is soluble in water means water can also break down DNA,,, i.e. DNA can desolve in water.

 

[Brian2]

No, objective evidence is evidence that can be observed by anyone. Subjective is the opposite. Please note, objective can be observed by anyone. That does not mean that it is because there are those that use the ostrich defense.

Evidence for God can be observed by anyone but some people do and some people don't see it as evidence for God.

 

[Brian2]

Poor reasoning.

Can you show the Biblical God does not exist without discrediting the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for God can be observed by anyone but some people do and some people don't see it as evidence for God.

That appears to be doubtful. If that is true why can't you ever post any? The only time that you have tried to post evidence you have failed. You could try to do so again and if you fail I will gladly explain where you went wrong.

 

[Brian2]

Critical analysis. Reason and logic. Objective evidence.

When it comes to the existence of God, how does this go?

Yes, "strong atheists assert that there is no god, but for ordinary atheists, and atheism in general, it's merely lack of belief.

Which variety are you?
Why do you think people assert that there is no god?

It supports belief for you. It can't be used as evidence for the general public or in philosophic discourse.

It could be used as evidence for the general public.
I don't know about philosophical discourse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When it comes to the existence of God, how does this go?

Good question. It is your belief, it is your burden of proof. When it comes to rational thought belief follows sufficient evidence.

Which variety are you?
Why do you think people assert that there is no god?

For the same reason that they will state that "There is no Santa Claus" or "There is no Bigfoot". They are all extraordinary claims without any reliable evidence.

It could be used as evidence for the general public.
I don't know about philosophical discourse.

Give us examples and we can discuss them. You may be just relying on logical fallacies. We cannot tell until you post what you think is evidence.

 

[Brian2]

But that has already been done. Your particular version of God has been shown not to exist. You are now at the point like many other creationists where you have to claim that your God is a liar.

Why do you believe that? Why not adjust your belief in God instead? Why insist that the parts of the Bible that are clearly not meant to be read literally as being history?

Do you mean by "non literal" that the creation story was meant to show that God created the universe symbolically but not literally?
Or are you saying that the creation days were not meant to be 24 hour days?
Or that God did not just poof anything into existence?
Or............... ?
Or do you think that the creation story was just meant to show that God created it all but not as a historical narrative?
If the latter then how does that mean that the Bible God has been shown not to exist?
If the Bible God has been shown not to exist through other parts of the Bible then it should not matter how I interpret the creation story.
Are there other parts of the Bible which show that the Bible God does not exist?

 

[We Never Know]

Good question. It is your belief, it is your burden of proof. When it comes to rational thought belief follows sufficient evidence.

For the same reason that they will state that "There is no Santa Claus" or "There is no Bigfoot". They are all extraordinary claims without any reliable evidence.

Give us examples and we can discuss them. You may be just relying on logical fallacies. We cannot tell until you post what you think is evidence.

If Bob says he was spoken to by a god... How do you know he wasnt?
They do test after test to see if he is telling the truth.. they even scan his brain as he tells his story... It all looks legit.. Now what?

 

[Brian2]

None of the above addresses the problem of considering subjective religious claims and beliefs in comparison to the objective evidence supporting science and the nature of our existence,

Fundamentally there is absolutely no 'objective' evidence for the existence of God(s), and claims of spiritual souls and worlds beyond our physical world.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/subjective-vs-objective-information-explained

What Is Subjective Information?​

Subjective is a term that refers to someone’s personal opinions or feelings regarding a particular subject matter. Subjective views or opinions are not based on truth or fact. They are one person’s unique interpretation of an idea and their own thoughts, feelings, and background. A subjective observation is influenced by a number of factors, including many different types of biases. In grammar, subjective means any qualities that refer to the subject of a sentence.

What Is Objective Information?​

The word “objective” refers to factual, data-based information that is not informed by bias. Although feelings and personal opinions are not objective, objective data like facts or historical information can form the basis for an opinion or feeling. When someone gives you an objective assessment of a topic, it is formulated from data, verifiable facts, or other irrefutable evidence without considering the speaker’s personal feelings. Journalists strive to objectively report facts, as not to influence their readership with their subjective personal biases. Objectivity in grammar can also refer to the “object” or a sentence, meaning a noun that the subject of the sentence acts on.

In science:

Objective and Subjective Claims - TIP Sheet - Butte College

www.butte.edu

Objective means making an unbiased, balanced observation based on facts which can be verified. Subjective means making assumptions, making interpretations based on personal opinions without any verifiable facts. Objective observations or assessments can be used before arriving at any decisions.

I agree with that.

 

[Brian2]

Your God need not be shown not to exist. He's assumed not to exist, inasmuch as there's insufficient evidence he does.
The burden of demonstrating a claim is on the claimant.

Insufficient objective evidence does not show my God does not exist except for the purposes of scientific analysis. The naturalistic methodology is used in science, but that does not mean that God does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean by "non literal" that the creation story was meant to show that God created the universe symbolically but not literally?
Or are you saying that the creation days were not meant to be 24 hour days?
Or that God did not just poof anything into existence?
Or............... ?
Or do you think that the creation story was just meant to show that God created it all but not as a historical narrative?
If the latter then how does that mean that the Bible God has been shown not to exist?
If the Bible God has been shown not to exist through other parts of the Bible then it should not matter how I interpret the creation story.
Are there other parts of the Bible which show that the Bible God does not exist?

No part of it is accurate. But you should be happy with that. If you understood Genesis you would see that when read literally it shows God to be an incompetent, vain, evil being that blames his failures on others and then punishes not only them but their offspring as well.

The writers may have really believe it. They were far less sophisticated those days morally and knew nothing of science. They knew nothing fo the real world. I am merely trying to help you to preserve your beliefs. A literal interpretation is not only easily refuted, the God of it si far to self contradictory to exist.

The Noah's Ark story suffers the same flaws. As does the Exodus. There are probably others as well, but if you cannot understand the simple ones there is no way that you can understand the more complex examples.

 

[Brian2]

We consult reality directly by examining its evidence to see how it actually works and what it actually contains. Isn't that your answer to any question from daily life? "Is [favorite restaurant] open on Mondays?" "It's possible" "I know that, but is it actually open?" "Maybe you should call them and ask." If you generalize this principle to all belief, and only call actual that which has been detected by the aided or unaided senses, you're an empiricist.

And if you can't do that with God we either delay belief or say that the lack of objective evidence shows there is no God or we believe anyway on the grounds that God is possible and has subjective evidence for us that we believe.

I haven't seen that, but why would you consider that important even if correct? Is that a criticism of atheism in your mind? I'd call it a criticism of the unsound thinking of a particular atheist. And look at your demeaning and dismissive language. What's your objection to such behavior? I don't care what such a person believes any more than I do what the believers believe. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and to give his like meaning, that's fine as long as he isn't violently insane or sacrificing animals if he keeps the noise down.

It's just annoying and indicates a lack of sincerity in what the person says.

The point is that claims that "my evidence supports my conclusions" can be rejected by those who conform to the rules of reason applied to the available evidence, even if the claimant says he has his own way of reasoning that does connect evidence to conclusion.

But my evidence supports my conclusions for me and why should my beliefs worry you. You don't care if your neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and to give his like meaning, that's fine as long as he isn't violently insane or sacrificing animals if he keeps the noise down. So me having what I consider good reason to believe in my God does not bother you also I presume even if you don't like my evidence or how I came to the conclusions I did.

That's been done. It's not enough to pierce the veil of belief by faith. We know for a fact that short of some variation of Last Thursdayism, the biblical description of creation is incorrect, and that if the tree of multicellular life didn't evolve from currently extinct forms hundreds of millions of years ago, that we are the victims of a hoax perpetrated by some deceptive, superhuman power capable of arranging the evidence to appear as if evolution had occurred. Did your God do that?

I don't think Bible believers say that evolution does not happen.
From what little I know, there are gaps in the tree of life and science just presumes evolution fills all the gaps. Science of the gaps.
I don't see the Bible creation story as denying evolution altogether however.
So I don't think that discrediting the Bible creation story is the way to show that the Biblical God does not exist.

Science and empiricism are the standard for truth about reality. Believers unwittingly give homage to this by trying to make scripture conform better to the science, as when literal days become metaphorical days to accommodate the science. We see it in Craig's Kalam argument, which begins with the assumption that the world had a beginning now that we have a Big Bang theory. We see it with creationist apologists attacking the science with pseudoscientific arguments about mutation only being capable of degrading genetic code, or in statements that we can't observe or reproduce the past (a misunderstanding of the place of those two activities in science), or visions of 747s self-assembling in junkyards during tornadoes. Just as "hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue" in an effort to imitate or claim it, this is the homage the faith-based thinker pays reason. He wants to be seen as reasonable even if he has had little interest in learning critical thinking or even discovering what it is.

The universe had a beginning in the Bible before the BB theory. The evidence and theory of the BB just confirmed that the Bible was correct.
Faith in the truth and existence of things that we aren't 100% certain about is just part of what humans do, including those who believe the complete science story of evolution.
It's not that easy for chemicals to come together and form the things that need to be formed for life and evolution to begin and continue. It is not proven, it is presumed to have happened the way science might envisage because it had to have happened that way without a creator, with a naturalistic methodology.

 

[Brian2]

That appears to be doubtful. If that is true why can't you ever post any? The only time that you have tried to post evidence you have failed. You could try to do so again and if you fail I will gladly explain where you went wrong.

You cannot say where I went wrong if indeed what I post is subjective evidence for God to me.
You can say that it is not good evidence for you.
I could say that chemistry is not that forgiving and chance is not that forgiving and that chemicals assembling themselves into life forms without falling into a heap is something that needs precise conditions and chance to be on their side over and over again. iows it needs a designer, creator to dish it up, and the only reason people might say it did happen that way is because there is no alternative with the naturalistic methodology of science.
You probably disagree but that is opinion.

 

[Brian2]

Good question. It is your belief, it is your burden of proof. When it comes to rational thought belief follows sufficient evidence.

Belief can follow intuition.

For the same reason that they will state that "There is no Santa Claus" or "There is no Bigfoot". They are all extraordinary claims without any reliable evidence.

Does that mean that you do say that there is no God? Or is that just a reason that other people might use if that was their claim?

Give us examples and we can discuss them. You may be just relying on logical fallacies. We cannot tell until you post what you think is evidence.

I gave an example in post 714 but that is plainly a logical fallacy, incredulity. It does not matter though, it's still true imo.

 

[Brian2]

No part of it is accurate. But you should be happy with that. If you understood Genesis you would see that when read literally it shows God to be an incompetent, vain, evil being that blames his failures on others and then punishes not only them but their offspring as well.

The writers may have really believe it. They were far less sophisticated those days morally and knew nothing of science. They knew nothing fo the real world. I am merely trying to help you to preserve your beliefs. A literal interpretation is not only easily refuted, the God of it si far to self contradictory to exist.

The Noah's Ark story suffers the same flaws. As does the Exodus. There are probably others as well, but if you cannot understand the simple ones there is no way that you can understand the more complex examples.

It's easy to see your reasons but I disagree with them.

 

[Heyo]

If Bob says he was spoken to by a god... How do you know he wasnt?
They do test after test to see if he is telling the truth.. they even scan his brain as he tells his story... It all looks legit.. Now what?

If Alice says she has been abducted by aliens ... how do you know she wasn't?
Her story keeps consistent over different re-tellings, she passes a polygraph, brain scans show no signs of lying.
Now what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot say where I went wrong if indeed what I post is subjective evidence for God to me.
You can say that it is not good evidence for you.
I could say that chemistry is not that forgiving and chance is not that forgiving and that chemicals assembling themselves into life forms without falling into a heap is something that needs precise conditions and chance to be on their side over and over again. iows it needs a designer, creator to dish it up, and the only reason people might say it did happen that way is because there is no alternative with the naturalistic methodology of science.
You probably disagree but that is opinion.

Subjective evidence is not reliable evidence. We were discussing reliable evidence.

And making ignorant statements does not help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's easy to see your reasons but I disagree with them.

Which means that even you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Belief can follow intuition.

Yes, but it is not rational belief.

Does that mean that you do say that there is no God? Or is that just a reason that other people might use if that was their claim?

No, I do not go that far. But you should be able to see that that is a far more rational belief than yours.

I gave an example in post 714 but that is plainly a logical fallacy, incredulity. It does not matter though, it's still true imo.

Your opinion is of no value in this discussion. What matters Is what one can support. And all that you had in post 714 was a very inane argument from ignorance. You merely made yourself look foolish