Life From Dirt?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, it means in effect that it is unknown, other than if you have faith in your God, then you have faith. But that doesn't mean that God exists nor that God doesn't exist.
And it doesn't stop me from having faith in another God, namely mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but it is not rational belief.

...

Yes and that is a part of how a part of the universe works.

 

[Audie]

Evidence can be objective and can also be subjective.
I might say that it's a warm day and that is my subjective opinion about a temperature that can be objectively verified, but someone else might say it is cool in their opinion. So each of the opinions are subjective evidence.
I might say that I feel tired. The evidence for the tiredness is not objective but is my report on how I feel.
I might say that something shows to me that there is a God.
That something is subjective evidence because it is not objective evidence that there is a God even if it is evidence for some people, or even maybe for all people who believe in a God.

If a person is actually tired there will be
objective evidence observable with medical
instruments.

And btw, your "possible conclusions" have
a great tendency to be highly fanciful, and Impossible.

To state them as fact is flakey. At best.

 

[Audie]

There are forces unknown to scientists that can overcome what is thought by scientists to be impossible. You think one way, I think another. Thus your posits cannot be proved, and I'm looking forward to what is currently deemed impossible to be overturned.

Pseudo logical is not much of a way of
thinking

 

[Brian2]

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

And making ignorant statements does not help you.

Where is what I said an ignorant statement, apart from the fact that I don't know what happened and so I am ignorant about it. But neither do you and your opinion on it would be an ignorant statement.
The probability of chemicals joining into cellular structures is imo infinitessimally small.
It does not happen these days even with biological material laying around.
So I have a subjective opinion about it and it seems reasonable to me and to indicate a creator.
That is subjective evidence and we can all see that it is reasonable to call it evidence, but I'm not sure how it can be tested by science except maybe in a probability way.

 

[Brian2]

Which means that even you know that you are wrong.

That does not make sense imo

 

[Audie]

Where is what I said an ignorant statement, apart from the fact that I don't know what happened and so I am ignorant about it. But neither do you and your opinion on it would be an ignorant statement.
The probability of chemicals joining into cellular structures is imo infinitessimally small.
It does not happen these days even with biological material laying around.
So I have a subjective opinion about it and it seems reasonable to me and to indicate a creator.
That is subjective evidence and we can all see that it is reasonable to call it evidence, but I'm not sure how it can be tested by science except maybe in a probability way.

You have a great tendency to express (very)
ignorant opipions about matters such as
chemistry, physics, geology, biology etc.

And elementary probability and statistics.

 

[Audie]

That does not make sense imo

I dont get it either.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but it is not rational belief.

It can be rational. It certainly is not irrational, just not a belief determined purely as a reasoned thing and considering all the evidence on some sort of rationality scales that we have inside us. Maybe it is a leap of faith after considering the evidence, just as a leap of faith would be to say that the evidence is not enough to show there is a god.

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

"More rational belief" sounds like a subjective thing in this case.

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

It is just obvious that the chemistry does not fall together and hold together or that the conditions would be very rare indeed. It sounds obvious that any science that says chemicals can combine into life forms without precise conditions and incredible luck etc is not telling the whole story.
But that sort of inane argument from ignorance is what you have to deal with when it comes to theists. Can you deal with it without just waving your hand and dismissing it?
How about an inane question like--- how does the genetic system of evolution evolve without the genetic system of evolution first being there?

 

[Brian2]

If a person is actually tired there will be
objective evidence observable with medical
instruments.

I thought there might be medical evidence for tiredness. Not the best analogy.

And btw, your "possible conclusions" have
a great tendency to be highly fanciful, and Impossible.

To state them as fact is flakey. At best.

Are you saying that this is fanciful or impossible? If so, why? If not then you're going to have to be more specific.
I might say that something shows to me that there is a God.
That something is subjective evidence because it is not objective evidence that there is a God even if it is evidence for some people, or even maybe for all people who believe in a God.

 

[Brian2]

I dont get it either.

I'm just as ignorant about my being wrong as I am about everything else.

 

[Brian2]

You have a great tendency to express (very)
ignorant opipions about matters such as
chemistry, physics, geology, biology etc.

And elementary probability and statistics.

Is it ignorant? Really? Did I say anything that is definitely wrong?

 

[Audie]

I thought there might be medical evidence for tiredness. Not the best analogy.



Are you saying that this is fanciful or impossible? If so, why? If not then you're going to have to be more specific.
I might say that something shows to me that there is a God.
That something is subjective evidence because it is not objective evidence that there is a God even if it is evidence for some people, or even maybe for all people who believe in a God.

I will point out examples.

Surely you can detect it when you are getting fanciful
Stating fantasy as fact is poor practice.
My basic rule is that if magic is necessary,
then jts impossible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it ignorant? Really? Did I say anything that is definitely wrong?

No, you are just subjective as subjective, when some of us choose subjectively to be objective. That is all.

 

[Audie]

Is it ignorant? Really? Did I say anything that is definitely wrong?

I was generalizing about your posts.

Your " doesn't happen now" is just
an opinion.
Abiogenesis could happen millions of
times every hour. Who would know.

Your opinion on probability and stats is
not based on knowledge.

 

[Brian2]

No, you are just subjective as subjective, when some of us choose subjectively to be objective. That is all.

And the discussion is sort of about subjective evidence for God and how that can be fine for those who use it.
And that really, in what I said, it is subjective (opinion) and not reasonable to say that chemicals could easily just come together and form structures that might later come to life.
The better choice imo is to say a creator set it all up so that these structures were formed. But this is not even a possible choice in the naturalistic methodology of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And the discussion is sort of about subjective evidence for God and how that can be fine for those who use it.
And that really, in what I said, it is subjective (opinion) and not reasonable to say that chemicals could easily just come together and form structures that might later come to life.
The better choice imo is to say a creator set it all up so that these structures were formed. But this is not even a possible choice in the naturalistic methodology of science.

The problem is that subjective evidence is just that. And I have other subjective evidence for God than you. But you use your subjective evidence to claim that the world is objectively.
If you could learn how subjectivity has limit for the objective part of the world, we could do a different debate.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Evidence for God is not objectively observed. Believers and non-believers seethe same natural world around us. For believers it remails a subjective interpretation of what they believe beyond what they 'see.'

 

[Brian2]

I will point out examples.

Surely you can detect it when you are getting fanciful
Stating fantasy as fact is poor practice.
My basic rule is that if magic is necessary,
then jts impossible.

I can detect it when I am getting fanciful in the opinion of atheists/skeptics, and I don't apologise and I probably have done it on purpose.
Of course I have the opinion that a God is real and that a God doing things that have not been shown to be even possible (magic things we could say), is better than to say that these things (the magic things )just happened without any planning or help.
And even if I did not think that a God is real, my reasoning is probably alright as an argument for God.
That is subjective and so I suppose you would not agree.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence for God is not objectively observed. Believers and non-believers seethe same natural world around us. For believers it remails a subjective interpretation of what they believe beyond what they 'see.'

Yep, it's a subjective interpretation, a leap of faith if you like.
I do not see God when I look around but I see evidence for God. We all see it, but many say it is not evidence. To some people only things testable by science can be called evidence.