Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

You probably know that I don't think there was a world wide flood.
What else do I believe that has been shown to be false?

You cannot even come up with a local flood that is not easily refuted. You were given this challenge and you ran away. What is your version of the flood myth? You will need details. Did every person die except for Noah and company on the boat? That is a question that alone will probably sink your claims.

 

[Brian2]

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?

As long as you understand that science is unable to show anything else except physical underpinnings and science does not know if anything else is needed.
Science will never show any spiritual side, so you have limited you world to the material, and it is not a meaningless label, it's a descriptive label.

 

[Brian2]

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.

My imagination and faith-based beliefs are irrelevant.
Science that can only test for physical answers and can only come up with physical answers are all that are relevant.
Not to me, but to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As long as you understand that science is unable to show anything else except physical underpinnings and science does not know if anything else is needed.
Science will never show any spiritual side, so you have limited you world to the material, and it is not a meaningless label, it's a descriptive label.

If you want to say that the "spiritual" exists the burden of proof is upon you. Why do believers always blame science for their own shortcomings?

 

[Brian2]

Such as?

Some people have bigger d-cks than they need to survive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Name the "assumptions" when it comes to the sciences. That sounds like a claim that you cannot support.

Well, yes, it can be done. But it doesn't support God as such. Rather the metaphysical/ontological status of objective reality in itself is that, it is independent of the mind and that can be known, but what it is otherwise is unknown.
BTW the assumptions of science are methodological naturalism.

In effect all positive claims of what objective reality is as natural or supernatural are both without evidence and/or proof. And at least some theists in effect cheat for the following invalid and unsound deduction.
There is no evidence that objective reality is natural, therefore it is from God.

In a historical sense as for the development from natural philosophy to science as both within philosophy as per epistemology the change was that idea of absolute proof was given up on and the following assumptions were used to secure knowledge:
The universe is real, orderly and knowable.
But these are without evidence or proof, but rather they are the basis for evidence as a method.

The theists gain nothing in support of God by pointing that out, but it is correct none the less that science rests on assumptions about what the universe is.
But in practice for the shared everyday assumption that we are in the universe as such, it means nothing for the practical parts that are objective. It only becomes relevant as in effect how different humans cope with being humans.
It is the demarcation of what is versus what we ought to do, that in the end, is where we get into the fight of what really matters as to how we ought to live our lives. But that is not natural science as such. That belongs to sociology, psychology, philosophy and/or religion.

And there is no unique about that. It is even noted here on a teaching site for what science is and what it can't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Brian2]

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

All that has been shown to be plausible, at a stretch, is chemistry forming bodies.
And really what is probably being shown is that building block design and environment design was needed, but don't expect anyone in science to say that.

"heads I win, tails you lose"

Just being rational. And no, if God exists, we both win.

 

[Brian2]

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

How things are justified seems to be different to different people. If I have faith them my faith has been justified to me or I would not have it.

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

No the discussion turns in another direction and away from the ever growing demands for scientific testable gods when science cannot do that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

OK so it might not have all the necessary items, so a God might be necessary and science just has not found out what for because it does not even know that it has all the necessary items and that things will happen with only those items.

That's correct more or less, but I have worded it differently. Gods are not known to exist nor to be necessary, and adding gods to science doesn't add any explanatory or predictive power, so if they exist, they can sit on the back burner for now until a need for one surfaces.

Consider the role of dark matter in science, something now known to exist through its observed gravitational effects on galaxies and clusters of galaxies despite its inability to generate or reflect light. Prior to the discoveries that led to its existence being postulated, the idea had no value, and adding it to a scientific theory would be arbitrary and add complexity without adding explanatory or predictive power, called a violation of Occam's parsimony principle.

That's the status gods have now in science. If somebody can discover an aspect of reality that makes an intelligent designer for the universe necessary, then and only then will the idea find its way into scientific narratives. You and other creationists plead for your god to be seated somewhere in all of this science, and bemoan science's barrier to unjustified belief: "who cares, what science says is good enough for me and if science has not actually shown something to be true, that is OK with me also ... science right or wrong, rah, rah, rah"

Yes, the science is enough, and if something has not been demonstrated to be the case empirically, it should not be believed to be the case.

As I said, it is not know whether adding god is going to improve it or not

Sure it is. Go ahead and add one to any science you like. Let's take E=MC2. Now add a god to that: "God said, let E=MC2 and it was so." Did that improve the comment in your estimation? Not by my standards or those of the academic community. What can you do with it now that you couldn't do before with fewer words?

theists just point out the assumptions and presumptions and skeptics/atheists deny that they exist

What assumptions do you see skeptics making that they are unaware of or deny? None, I'd say. I have made a few assumptions here, and deny none of them. I'm assuming the validity of skepticism, empiricism, and Occam's razor, and the lack of value of belief by faith.

And all of these assumptions are corroborated by the evidence of their spectacular success at achieving their goal - describing the world in ways that makes predicting it accurately and therefore navigating it more successfully possible. We live longer, are more functional (eyeglasses), less hard labor (machines), more comfort (air conditioning), and more interesting (modern travel and telecommunications). The validity of the assumptions that led to that are confirmed by that success.

Skeptics disagree that your concerns are relevant.

Science will never show any spiritual side

Sure it does. It just doesn't use that language. The spiritual intuition is a byproduct of the human brain and is fit for scientific study. You might have seen some of my own observations about that experience and its significance, and how they led me out of Christianity. That's empiricism (science).

 

[Brian2]

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

Faith is a gift from God and we look the gift horse in the mouth if we don't want it or are skeptical that it is a good gift.
Why demand detection of a spirit by physical methods? I guess people who do that don't really want the gift.

I don't know, I just believe God is real.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Why make it complicated. Either there is a God or there is not.

 

[viole]

Logical possibility is why science does not eliminate God.

By that logic, science should not eliminate the possibility, either, that planets orbits are in fact caused by invisible angels, obsessed with conic sections, and carrying those planets around.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, yes, it can be done. But it doesn't support God as such. Rather the metaphysical/ontological status of objective reality in itself is that, it is independent of the mind and that can be known, but what it is otherwise is unknown.
BTW the assumptions of science are methodological naturalism.

In effect all positive claims of what objective reality is as natural or supernatural are both without evidence and/or proof. And at least some theists in effect cheat for the following invalid and unsound deduction.
There is no evidence that objective reality is natural, therefore it is from God.

In a historical sense as for the development from natural philosophy to science as both within philosophy as per epistemology the change was that idea of absolute proof was given up on and the following assumptions were used to secure knowledge:
The universe is real, orderly and knowable.
But these are without evidence or proof, but rather they are the basis for evidence as a method.

The theists gain nothing in support of God by pointing that out, but it is correct none the less that science rests on assumptions about what the universe is.
But in practice for the shared everyday assumption that we are in the universe as such, it means nothing for the practical parts that are objective. It only becomes relevant as in effect how different humans cope with being humans.
It is the demarcation of what is versus what we ought to do, that in the end, is where we get into the fight of what really matters as to how we ought to live our lives. But that is not natural science as such. That belongs to sociology, psychology, philosophy and/or religion.

And there is no unique about that. It is even noted here on a teaching site for what science is and what it can't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I know that is the assumption of science. He was using the term "assumption" in a bit of a derogatory sense which means that not only does he need to name the assumptions but to point out the problems with them.

Ontological naturalism does not refute God. Well let me rephrase that. It only refutes some "Gods". If one believes in a Flat Earth God, then yes, that God is refuted by ontological naturalism. But it does not refute a generic God. The problem arises when reality refutes the version of God of some of the religious.

 

[Brian2]

Why not?

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

So anything, including occam's razor is fine to take faith in God off the books. OK

 

[Subduction Zone]

By that logic, science should not eliminate the possibility, either, that planets orbits are in fact caused by invisible angels, obsessed with conic sections, and carrying those planets around.

Ciao

- viole

Those hyperbolic angels like a clean Solar System

 

[Subduction Zone]

So anything, including occam's razor is fine to take faith in God off the books. OK

I would say just certain versions of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why make it complicated. Either there is a God or there is not.

One has to oppose certain versions of God because the believers in immoral versions tend to use their God beliefs to defend their immoral acts. If one's version of God leaves other people alone no one will care.

 

[Brian2]

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

Why would science come up with anything else than naturalistic answers when science can only study nature?
I believe the Bible however as extra on top of what science can come up with.
Many people just know instinctively that there has to be more than what we see around us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not a local flood.



That seems to be based on who is doing the doubting.



Logical possibility is why science does not eliminate God.



The leap of faith is by people who believe and preach that there is no God.
Because someone though lightning was thrown by God, does not make it true.
Finding a mechanism for lightning does not eliminate God.
No possible natural mechanisms eliminate God.



You don't need a God to understand (partially) what happens in the universe.

Let's not kid ourselves here, the story in the Bible is definitely not about a "local" flood. The whole point of the story is that God killed everyone on earth except for Noah and his family - the only truly righteous people on earth.
To make it into a local flood (and let's face it, you're having to do that because the science doesn't back up a global flood) is to butcher the story into something rather mundane and pointless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would science come up with anything else than naturalistic answers when science can only study nature?
I believe the Bible however as extra on top of what science can come up with.
Many people just know instinctively that there has to be more than what we see around us.

Really? They know? I have as yet to see one that did not have mere belief. You may be a bit confused. Merely believing very strongly is not knowing. Knowledge is demonstrable and if one cannot demonstrate why their beliefs are true all that they have is mere belief.