Life From Dirt?

[SkepticThinker]

All science can explore is the material side of life. Spirit might not help us understand what actually happens in the body, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
Seeing what happens in the body does not eliminate spirit as a life force. Science says stuff at time (like "no elan vitale") which shows the material basis of science and it's limitations, and how easily it can say that something does not exist when in fact it does not know.



True. But do you so easily agree when I point stuff out to you.



That God is true and was going to send His Son to die and take our sins on Himself is the claim, the promise. The gospels are the evidence that it happened.
And it happened even before humans had worked out exactly what the promises meant, so the story was not made up to match the promises.

The Gospels are the claim that it happened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The Gospels are the claim that it happened.

That is a particular example of in effect the following: If I say that the dentition of X is Y, then it doesn't make X is Y a fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can reason that a designer and creator and life giver was most likely needed for this universe and the things in it.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Then I can believe in a God who did those things.

You can believe anything you want. But it doesn't mean it's rationally justified. Faith positions are not rationally justified and not a pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith. Please notice how you turn to faith when asked for evidence for your beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

I don't know how the universe began. Big Bang just tells us about when it began to expand.
At this point, it does not appear that god(s) are required to explain how the universe came to be and came to expand, and in fact, I think positing the existence of a creator god just complicates things and adds axioms to the equation that aren't necessary.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That wasn't my question.

I'm here for a variety of reasons. I like debate. I like to construct and refine arguments, identify and name fallacies, and to practice writing skills. I also like to share ideas with like-minded people. I read their arguments and their turns of phrase making them. I learn science, philosophy, and mathematics here. And I like to introduce my arguments and demeanor to those with whom they resonate. That's the lecture section of humanism 101. The lab section is the interactions with the faithful, where one gets the opportunity to have extended, anonymous conversations with a wide assortment of believers and skeptics. This is where one sees the effect of faith on thought, the humanists serving as the control group.

But back to your concern. The faithful don't care for this trend. Once, "heretics" were silenced and closeted, and there really was little open resistance to Christian values and teaching. In my lifetime, atheists have been considered unfit to coach, teach, adopt, serve on juries, or give expert testimony, but no longer except in the heads of the Abrahamists who are still taught that atheists are immoral and accept that judgment uncritically.

Today, the skeptic has a platform and atheism enjoys a growing respectability. It's the church on the defensive now, and it's unprepared to deal with it.

Naturally, there is the effort to inhibit these kinds of comments that challenge church authority, which is what you are doing - hoping to embarrass me by defining what I do in terms of excessive effort expended on something pointless. You're not American, but we see the same thing there. The conservatives are pretty unhappy about all of the negativity about Trump, so they attempt to frame it as a psychological defect, as an inappropriate and laughable response - "Trump derangement syndrome" or "He lives in your head rent-free."

Well the first part of that made sense, so thanks for explaining what it is that keeps you locked in the endless circle of belligerent debate; which is what I was genuinely interested to hear about.

The second half of your post you seem to have addressed yet again to that character of your own creation “The Theist”. I’m sure the archetype exists somewhere in reality, but not here. I have no wish to see you burned for heresy, I doubt anyone does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When it comes to consciousness and the abstract things we perceive, that is where materialists try to make two or more into one.
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.

We can observe that when the brain is damaged, the mind is also damaged.
We can observe that when a person dies, their consciousness dies with them. We never seen consciousnesses floating out of bodies up into heaven or anything.

So, how do we reconcile those observations with your assertions about brains and consciousness being separate things?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Please define the "spiritual side."

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Only because you move the goal posts once we start actually digging into it.
At one point you were telling me that the flood might have just been local, remember?

I'd say the existence of entire civilizations before and after the flood, that seem to have been completely oblivious that any flood ever occurred at all, and continued to thrive before, during and after this supposed global flood, is a huge nail in the coffin of flood mythology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

It's not a faith belief to leave out things that are not in evidence. For instance, it's not a faith belief to accept evolution occurs without the intervention of fairies either. The faith comes in when you start positing the existence and intervention of things which are not shown to exist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Then it's not a good reason to dismiss universe-vomiting pixies or leprechauns either. So I guess we have to believe in all of those things too?

 

[Polymath257]

That is a particular example of in effect the following: If I say that the dentition of X is Y, then it doesn't make X is Y a fact.

Absolutely it does. It is simply definitional.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely it does. It is simply definitional.

So a definition of a word, makes the referent a fact?

 

[Brian2]

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 cause of inflation (God) existed at the time of inflation and continued to exist.
But science can measure gravity and electricity etc but does not really know what they are or what anything in the material realm is.

"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

That's good. It did not solve the problem of who caused that however. That is only a problem when people start thinking that finding a possible physical answer to a question eliminates the need for God.

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

I was commenting on those who believe God does not exist but change to "I only lack a belief in God" at any time it is convenient.
And yes if anyone has or accepts the evidence they will believe God exists.

 

[Brian2]

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.

And if we evolved just to survive and reproduce in our environment, evolution did a bit of an overkill with humans. It is almost as if we evolved to have dominion of the earth.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I appears I have nothing as well.
Why should I be any different.

 

[Polymath257]

So a definition of a word, makes the referent a fact?

That is not what you asked, nor what i said.

If I define a squibble to be an orange cow, then it is a fact that a squibble is an orange cow even if no squibbles exist. It is a separate question whether there actually exists a referent or not.

 

[Brian2]

Ignoring facts is a requirement of creationism

Are you speaking about YEC or anyone who believed God created everything?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is not what you asked, nor what i said.

If I define a squibble to be an orange cow, then it is a fact that a squibble is an orange cow even if no squibbles exist. It is a separate question whether there actually exists a referent or not.

So if I define the objective world as real, it only means I define it as real. The evidence is something else.

 

[Brian2]

Please give the reason to think it exists.

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.

That sounds right. Life is labeled as a physical phenomenon when all that is being analysed is the material that life manifests in.
So I don't give the reason to think it exists but show there is no reason to think it does not exist and that the stories of the spiritual experiences of people etc are not true.

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.

It cannot deal with spirit or God.

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

Then you want science to do what it cannot do. And you probably think that science stepping into the study of the Bible, has show that it is as true as unicorns and fairies.

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.

So the Christian mythos is seen as untrue from the start, until it is proven to be true.
Sounds like something that is set up from the start to deny the truth of the scriptures.

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.

"Actual" evidence is something not agreed upon. "Actual" evidence usually means evidence that science can test. Not worth believing unless it can be tested.
So testing with actual belief is not seen as kosher.

 

[Polymath257]

So if I define the objective world as real, it only means I define it as real. The evidence is something else.

Well, it *might* mean you have a non-standard definition of the term 'real'. That could limit communication if you aren't clear about your definition.

If the question is what the term 'real' means, what alternative definition do you propose?