Life From Dirt?

[Polymath257]

Not even the flood has been shown to be false imo.

The Noadic flood has been shown to be fiction.

But this is about atheists/skeptics saying that things are true when science has not shown them to be true.

True beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to proof at the mathematical level.

That is what you say does not happen on this forum isn't it.

So no God is possible and life began without God and the universe began without God.

There are versions of the concept of God that are possible: identifying God as the universe, or as the physical laws make God exist, but not with most of the usually assumed characteristics. It is *possible* that a race of higher dimensional beings has learned how to create universes and that ours is a high school art project that has been forgotten in some room. But there is no reason to think that is what actually is the case.

Logical possibility is a very, very weak filter for ideas.

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.

Nope. No such leap has been made by science as a whole. All that has happened is that the theories have developed and God has been found to be irrleevant to understanding. And, at each stage, those things attributed to a supernatural deity have been found to have natural explanations.

With statements like what you said, I do not believe your atheism is just a lack of belief.
Am I right?

I find there to be deep philosophical problems with the idea of a supernatural. Those problems need to be overcome before I could believe in a supernatural deity. That is a separate issue (although related) to the fact that science doesn't require a deity or supernatural to understand what happens in the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, that is just a weak explanation of an obvious contradiction in the Bible. It is not based upon the Bible itself at all. In fact at one point it was argued the other way around. This is merely apologetics, or in other words Lying For Jesus.

 

[Polymath257]

You assume that God was not needed even before that has been shown to be the case.

It is shown to be the case by having explanations that don't require a deity and where those explanations are testable and make correct predictions.

You assume that because the scientific narrative contains no unnecessary elements, that this means it has all the necessary elements.

If everything can be explained without those elements, they are not necessary for understanding.

That is where and why it is the presumption of materialism.

No such presumption is required.

I, for one, have never found a good definition of 'materialism' that applies to all scientific theories. it is a term I don't use except in discussions like this one. I prefer 'physicalism', but even that has definitional issues.

 

[Audie]

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.

Educated Christians by the million know there was no flood.

IF it's your opinion that there was a world wide flood,
and it has not been disproved, that is a truly shameful
level of ignorance and denial.

As for what's true, there are facts.
One is, no flood.

You may still be confused about
proving a theory, and don't understand that
ITS IMPOSSIBLE in this universe to prove a theory.

Trying to put the error off onto atheists/ skeptics
is frankly , childish, and probably unchristian.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You assume that God was not needed even before that has been shown to be the case.

Why are we even talking about the existence of something that is not needed to explain anything?

"How did the room you're in get to be painted the color it is," you are asked.

You answer, "I presume that the previous owners or their agents chose the color and either applied it with brushes and rollers themselves or paid somebody else to do so."

Then you hear, "How do you know that three blind mice weren't needed? You assume that three mice weren't needed even before that has been shown to be the case."

What's your response?

You assume that because the scientific narrative contains no unnecessary elements, that this means it has all the necessary elements.

No, I don't. It means that it contains no unnecessary items just like the words said.

What you wrote was different, an extremely common phenomenon on these threads - an attempt at paraphrasing that corrupts original meaning. It occurs in most threads, as in when one says that he believes in no gods, this becomes, "He said gods don't exist." I wonder why this is, and why we see it coming essentially exclusively from faith-based thinkers? I've never been told that I got it wrong by any believer. They usually disagree with my opinions, but I don't read, "That's not what I said."

And when we see it once in somebody, we know it likely happens frequently. It tells us that whenever such a person is processing information, that error is likely to occur, like a manufacturing process that generates a defective product every fourth or fifth iteration. It pretty much invalidates that individual as a reliable source of information.

That is where and why it is the presumption of materialism.

You know the drill. If you consider an idea wrong, rebut it. Show why it is wrong. Show why these foundational assumptions are false. If you can't do that, it may be because they are sound. That's how these matters are decided in academic culture. I realize that it conflicts with your religious beliefs, but that's not an issue for the critical thinker who doesn't share those beliefs and who doesn't have a problem accepting the fruits of science even when they contain no god mentions. The scientific method works at predicting various aspects of nature without gods, and adding gods doesn't improve that.

 

[Audie]

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.

The assume assume assume presume is
province of theists.
Thinking people know there COULD be
a god.
It's the theists with minds sealed shut,
who assume that a universe without
their particular God is impossible.

Again, you project your faults onto
others.

It's a bad habit. See about changing it

 

[blü 2]

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.

No, the author of Mark, wanting to narrate the trial scene of his hero, turned to Josephus' Wars to help him model it. And Josephus' Wars was not around till 75 CE.

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.

No, I've already told you that these observations come from theologian Ted Weeden jr. That is simply Carrier's arrangement of them which I linked so you can see them on the net. Pay attention, class!

You sound as if you are trying to blame God in a round about way, for what people have done.

I'm pointing out that sending such a 'prophet' to [his] own people, with whom [he]'s had a special covenant for centuries, would be a singularly stupid and destructive policy ─ especially since there was nothing about Jesus to identify him as a Messiah of any recognizable kind. Don't try to blame people here ─ the story shows clearly that God is either malicious or stupid or both.

One is of Joseph and the other of Mary.

No, as I've said more than once, and quoted you the exact words, out loud and proud they're both of Joseph.

You need to get your dyslexia seen to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They do and that is all there is to them in materialism.

I don't do such meaningless labels.

The point is that all the evidence shows physical underpinnings and zero evidence suggests something else.
So why would I consider something else?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can reason that a designer and creator and life giver was most likely needed for this universe and the things in it.
Then I can believe in a God who did those things.

Just because you can imagine things, doesn't make them real.

You use the word "reason", but what you really mean is "imagine".

I can "imagine" that the big bang was the result of an extra-dimensional unicorn farting. But that doesn't make it so. Nor does that make it reasonable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you think that abiogenesis is correct or that the universe began by itself and organised itself and that a God is not needed for those things?

1. there is no conclusive theory of abiogenesis.

2. there is zero evidence of gods

3. the origins of the universe / big bang are unknown.

All evidence suggests that life began through chemistry. This is why abiogenesis science focusses its research on (bio)chemical reactions.

If you have any evidence of other things, by all means: share it.
Your imagination and faith-based beliefs are irrelevant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Us humans certainly seem to have traits that far exceed anything needed to survive.

Such as?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is subjective evidence for the existence of God

There is also "subjective evidence" for the existence of bigfoot, the lochness monster, the Kraken, sasquatch, leprechauns, fairies, alien abductions,....

Such "subjective evidence" is worthless when the goal is to find out what is actually true.

and so in that way there is evidence for God's involvement in abiogenesis and evolution.

No, there isn't. There are just people with faith based beliefs.

But of course abiogenesis has not been shown to be possible.

It is shown to be plausible.
Gods etc have not.

And if the problems get resolved that does not mean that is evidence that it happened without God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just to be rational about it.

"heads I win, tails you lose"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

IOW, you feel like beliefs don't need to be justified.
You are happy to just hold them and pretend that is enough.

Then the discussion can progress.

No. Actually, that's when the discussion stops as there is no point to continue.

 

[Brian2]

I would say that the scientific method (skeptical use of observations to make models and test them) is the only show in town for determining truth about the real world.

If that is not your goal, then a different show would be more appropriate for you.

I would point out that the 'God assumption' adds nothing to our understanding. It only pushes back questions one more step. For example, what allows God to make universes? How can God be conscious? Through what process does God do what (s)he decides? How can we test our ideas about God? How can we choose between different God beliefs and at least determine which are false? How did God come to be alive? What processes allow God to live?

The list goes on and on, with no way to answer these questions. Abiogenesis and evolution are much more cohesive and testable.

Occam's Razor is not a good reason to dismiss God of course.

 

[Brian2]

" Theory as fact" is such lamebrain
garbage it's a marvel even " we", being the creationists
keep bringing it up.

Nobody with a nodding acquaintance with science
thinks there are " no alternatives" possible.
That's a "believer" claim.
Dumb, but " no possible alternative" to their
" god" could exist is what they think .
I..

With or without God, the 2 alternatives. Science doesn't know but just studies what it finds to study and comes up with the materialist version of what might have happened back then.

 

[Brian2]

You may be confused a bit. Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity. As @Polymath257 just pointed out, some sort of abiogenesis occurred on the Earth. The various hypotheses of abiogenesis currently attempt to explain that fact. There is no full or complete explanation yet. That is why it is still in the hypothetical stage. Even if we get answers for all of the steps it may still be hypothetical. Not because it did not happen. But rather because scientists have found more than one answer on how certain steps could have occurred.

What, and if they only find one answer, that has to be the way it happened?

Believers in magical god poofing can't seem to find any evidence for their beliefs. The closest that they have ever come have been arguments based on logical fallacies that have been shown to be wrong again and again. That is what the argument of Irreducible Complexity is. It boils down to "You do not know how this could happen, therefore it is impossible". That is an argument from ignorance. Worse yet, for each and every example that I am aware of the argument has failed, with the exception of a couple of gnarlier problems in abiogenesis. In evolution where it was first used it is an utter failure.

In science the God did it answer is not acceptable, that is true.
The answer that God did not do it because we have found what we think of possible ways something could have happened may be acceptable in skepticism but logically it is not acceptable for me. For a skeptic the places where abiogenesis etc might fall down don't really matter anyway, the theory is accepted already, after all God and spirit cannot be found by science.

 

[Polymath257]

Occam's Razor is not a good reason to dismiss God of course.

OK, what *would* be a good reason? Why default to the existence of something that has no way to detect it?

 

[Polymath257]

With or without God, the 2 alternatives. Science doesn't know but just studies what it finds to study and comes up with the materialist version of what might have happened back then.

No, there are far more than two alternatives. That is because humans have invented many different notions of 'God'.

And the simple fact is that it is impossible for ALL of them to be correct, but it *is* possible for all of them to be wrong. And, given the lack of consistency in such God beliefs, it is far more likely that ALL of them are wrong. This is especially true since *none* of them are testable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Occam's Razor is not a good reason to dismiss God of course.

Why not?

Why would it, in the case of gods, be a good idea to invent / imagine unnecessary / obsolete unsupportable entities to explain anything?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With or without God, the 2 alternatives. Science doesn't know but just studies what it finds to study and comes up with the materialist version of what might have happened back then.

It comes with the version that can actually be supported by valid evidence.
Why would it come with anything else?
Why would anyone?