Life From Dirt?

[Audie]

Some people do believe that God does not exist. They of course are willing to change their mind if needs be.

That is not a sign of retention

 

[Aupmanyav]

Stating that consciousness is a byproduct of matter or saying that what exists is one, there is no second, states the position but does not verify it. iow it just defines everything from a materialist pov.

Again, what is material and what is not? Is electricity material, is gravity material? Are the fundamental forces of nature material?
What existed other than 'physical energy' at the time of 'inflation'?

"The modern explanation for the metric expansion of space was proposed by physicist Alan Guth in 1979, while investigating the problem of why no magnetic monopoles are seen today. He found that if the universe contained a field in a positive-energy false vacuum state, then according to general relativity it would generate an exponential expansion of space. It was very quickly realized that such an expansion would resolve many other long-standing problems."

Cosmic inflation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some people do believe that God does not exist. They of course are willing to change their mind if needs be.

So, what is the problem with that? Give us verifiable evidence of existence of any God, and we will accept it.

 

[Brian2]

That raises the question, how would you show that a " spiritual side" even exists? It would help if you had a working definition of that term first.

Not with science and not with philosophy, they both end up at dead ends with people on one side saying thus a spiritual side exists and those on the other saying, that does not show that a spiritual side exists.
Being open to the experiences of people and those experiences having been truthfully recorded does not show the spiritual side exists but that doesn't need to happen when people believe it and agree anyway.
Then the discussion can progress.

 

[Brian2]

Like the fact that probably about a quarter of us have cats or dogs, and both parties usually finding this agreeable? This besides all the evidence that so many other species show much the same as to attributes as humans - if one does enough delving as to evidence as to this. Rather than ignoring such evidence.

Neither similarities nor differences should be ignored.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Neither similarities nor differences should be ignored.

Especially when some particular religious text tries to define all other non-human life?

 

[Brian2]

No, that "gap" appears to be mostly prejudicial. When people claim "easy to see" it usually isn't.



It seems that you already know that your claim has been refuted.

I don't know how to show that the vast differences between humans and animals mean more than just a bigger and better brain.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't know how to show that the vast differences between humans and animals mean more than just a bigger and better brain.

Try looking at our ancestors several hundred thousand years ago, and when the differences might not have been that obvious between them and other life. And then look at the progress we and they made, and as to why they just didn't do what we did - because all that was necessary for humans to evolve into what we are now just weren't in place for all other species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not with science and not with philosophy, they both end up at dead ends with people on one side saying thus a spiritual side exists and those on the other saying, that does not show that a spiritual side exists.
Being open to the experiences of people and those experiences having been truthfully recorded does not show the spiritual side exists but that doesn't need to happen when people believe it and agree anyway.
Then the discussion can progress.

No, neither side of those areas affirm a spiritual side.

And now you are merely urging people to be so open minded that their brains fall out. It appears that you have nothing as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how to show that the vast differences between humans and animals mean more than just a bigger and better brain.

That is probably because the gap is not as big as you think that it is.

It might help you if you realized that you are an animal too.

 

[Brian2]

And yes, we know that God is unnecessary for QM because QM never needs God to predict the result of actual observations.

What does that mean? I would have thought that since the Bible God is omniscient then God would be needed to predict the results of actual observations in a system that is said to be random, at least partially.

And what would be required to show that to be a fact, in your mind? The theory works. It does not use the concept of a God in its explanation. So no God is required to explain these things.

Why do you think that a God is required when the working scientific descriptions don't need it?

Having a theory that you say has been what happened in the past for the development of life, and saying that it requires no God to explain it, does not actually show us that the system is what happened in the past for the development of life or that God was not needed.
I can't imagine another system or tweaking the ToE is going to get to a stage where we know that we have what actually happened or know that God was not needed.

 

[Brian2]

On the contrary, they are the best supported by the observations and the science. If you have evidence otherwise, please let everyone know.

So? Does that mean that you should speak of those things (beauty, love and consciousness) as if you know what they are, especially when science, by it's nature, does not give the full story, just an analysis of the physical systems involved?

 

[Audie]

So? Does that mean that you should speak of those things (beauty, love and consciousness) as if you know what they are, especially when science, by it's nature, does not give the full story, just an analysis of the physical systems involved?

Part of a real story beats fantasy, at least, for
those not easily satisfied with pretty lies.

 

[Audie]

Neither similarities nor differences should be ignored.

Ignoring facts is a requirement of creationism

 

[Brian2]

Give evidence that a spirit exists. otherwise there is no reason to believe it exists.

You should say that there is no scientific reason to say that spirit exists, not, no reason to believe it exists.

It does know that those assumptions are not required to explain the phenomena we observe. And that is enough to not believe in them.

Why is it that science which can only test the material universe is seen as a way to verify spiritual things?
You can believe science is the only way to find out anything but the reality is that science has it's limits and cannot say that spirit does not exist as a life force.
Your beliefs and what science can say are 2 separate things.
You believe based on faith in the scientific method but science (or science philosophy ) sees further than that and realises that it does have limits.

Once again, the texts in the gospels are the *claims*. Evidence is required to show that they are good reports of what actually happened. Evidence is required to show that the events described are even possible. Otherwise, we can dismiss them just like we dismiss other claims of the supernatural in other texts.

You can and do dismiss the gospel accounts. Again you want material science to verify stories of the supernatural..................... No, you want and find a friend in science, to deny stories of the supernatural. But as I said, science cannot do that even if skeptical historians, while claiming unbiasedness, deny the supernatural in the stories to reach their conclusions that the supernatural in the stories in not true. Hmmm, something wrong there.
But yes, you can believe or deny (have a lack of belief in) whatever you want, or whatever the evidence or lack of the sort of evidence you want, forces you into believing or denying (have a lack of belief in).

 

[Brian2]

Here's Carrier's version of ideas which as far as I know were first put forward by theologian Ted Weeden jr.

I suggest you try to understand it and appreciate its significance for the dating of Mark.

Mind you, Jesus 'foretelling' the destruction of Jerusalem is quite enough to get Mark to 70 CE ─ the Jesus of Jerusalem parts of Josephus simply add five or so more years.

So a Jewish prophet, sent by God to prophesy the truth to the Jews, who is similar to Jesus in many ways and should have reminded the Jews of Jesus (and probably did) and who probably reminded the Jewish Christians of the prophecy of Jesus and to leave Jerusalem, was treated by the Jews in exactly the same way they treated Jesus, and with less cause, he did not even claim to be the Son of God, he did nothing wrong.
So a Jesus mythicist uses the date of Josephus's writing about it to twist into some weird evidence that Mark was written in 75 AD or later and used the story in his gospel, when in fact the real evidence shows that Mark was written before Luke which was written before 70AD.
I suppose you think that Mark must have grabbed a copy of Josephus off the shelves in the local book story and read the story. No, if Mark know of this Ananus it was when Ananus was roaming around and proclaiming, 5 or so years before 70AD.

Sure. Christians have pretended to own the Jewish bible from the start.

Explain this to me. Why would the God of the Jews send the Jews a prophet who would split Judaism into two parts, the Christian one of which would persecute and murder the Jewish part across 2000 years right up to Adolf's gas chambers?

You sound as if you are trying to blame God in a round about way, for what people have done.
That makes sense, God gets blamed for everything else that people do.

And therefore the whole genealogy is meaningless, since it's a (fake) genealogy of the not-the-father of Jesus, and thus ─ even were it genuine ─ incapable of making Jesus a descendant of David.

Just like the genealogy in Matthew.

One is of Joseph and the other of Mary. Matthew the writer for the Jews wanted to show Jesus as a legal descendant of David through the legal father.
Luke, writing for gentiles showed Jesus to be a biological descendant of David through Mary.
I don't know how a descendant of David could be the real Son of God other than this way.

 

[Brian2]

You believe yours when they are shown false

Not even the flood has been shown to be false imo.
But this is about atheists/skeptics saying that things are true when science has not shown them to be true.
That is what you say does not happen on this forum isn't it.

 

[Brian2]

What’s really astonishing is how very little understand human biology, and that above statement is utterly ignorant on the subject of human reproduction.

You just don’t know how ignorant you sound, because you have stuck your head so far in the sand it actually muffled not only your voice, but you have muffled any rational thought.

If Mary was indeed a Virgin, then there is no way she have any zygote in her womb.

The only way for zygote to exist, is that the sperm (gamete) would fuse with the egg (gamete), hence this fusion would fertilize the egg, and that’s the only way for woman to conceive.

No sperm, would mean no conception, no fertilization, and therefore no zygote.

So why would you say “no zygote was killed”?

In order, for zygote to become embryo, the zygote must divide the single zygote cell into daughter cells, and these cells will make more cells...as many cells as required for the embryos to grow and form into fetus, cells enough to grow and form all the body parts, which include all the bones, tissues, organs, head, limbs, digits, etc.

There are no zygote if there are no sperm. And the initial CELL DIVISION must occur with the zygote, otherwise there are no new cells, and no growth and no development.

I did not write about zygotes in a vacuum, I was answering something @blu2 said.
The conception was a miracle and did not comply with normal human reproduction I would suggest.

 

[Brian2]

Some version of abiogenesis is correct: there was no life on Earth when the Earth formed, but there was less than a billion years later. Somehow, the materials available on the Earth got life going.

There are many assumptions in the phrase 'the universe began by itself' that I do not agree with. There was no cause for the universe as a whole, I believe, only things *in* the universe (where the physical laws apply). The universe became organized over time because3 of those natural laws.

No consciousness was required for these things to occur. And, in fact, no consciousness was possible until life got going. So, no, no conscious deity was involved.

So no God is possible and life began without God and the universe began without God.
But these things are not from what science has shown, they are faith beliefs, meaning probably that science has taken you so far and you have made a leap of faith into the belief that God/s does not exist.
With statements like what you said, I do not believe your atheism is just a lack of belief.
Am I right?

 

[Polymath257]

You should say that there is no scientific reason to say that spirit exists, not, no reason to believe it exists.

Please give the reason to think it exists.

Why is it that science which can only test the material universe is seen as a way to verify spiritual things?

That is not the case. Science can deal with any phenomenon that is testable by any means. it just happens that when something becomes testable, we tend to label it as physical.

You can believe science is the only way to find out anything but the reality is that science has it's limits and cannot say that spirit does not exist as a life force.

Once again, please show that 'spirit' actually exists. Give some coherent reason to think that.

Your beliefs and what science can say are 2 separate things.
You believe based on faith in the scientific method but science (or science philosophy ) sees further than that and realises that it does have limits.

Of course it has limits. It is limited to think that are testable and are objectively valid. It cannot, for example, deal with aesthetics or morality. it cannot deal with personal taste or opinions.

You can and do dismiss the gospel accounts. Again you want material science to verify stories of the supernatural..................... No, you want and find a friend in science, to deny stories of the supernatural.

I want testable facts about the supernatural showing it actually exists. Otherwise, it is no different than unicorns and fairies.

But as I said, science cannot do that even if skeptical historians, while claiming unbiasedness, deny the supernatural in the stories to reach their conclusions that the supernatural in the stories in not true. Hmmm, something wrong there.

There is no reason to *deny* the supernatural if there is no good reason to think it even exists. Historians also 'deny' the existence of leprechauns and Zeus. And they do so for the same reasons they 'deny' the Christian mythos.

But yes, you can believe or deny (have a lack of belief in) whatever you want, or whatever the evidence or lack of the sort of evidence you want, forces you into believing or denying (have a lack of belief in).

If you have *actual* evidence for spirits or a supernatural, please provide it. It should be better than the 'evidence' for the existence of leprechauns, for example.

 

[Brian2]

Which part? I wrote, "The main difference in our thinking is that the scientific narrative contains no unnecessary elements. You want to find a job for a god. No scientific law or theory benefits in terms of explanatory or predictive power by inserting a god into it, so we don't. You're like the boss trying to find a job for his son-in-law in a company that works well without him. Sure, you can put him on the floor, but to do what that isn't already being done without him?"

You assume that God was not needed even before that has been shown to be the case.
You assume that because the scientific narrative contains no unnecessary elements, that this means it has all the necessary elements.
That is where and why it is the presumption of materialism.