Life From Dirt?

[wellwisher]

By theistic scientist I meant a scientist who believes in God.
Do you think that a scientist who believes in God can scientifically test that God?
Maybe believing scientist tests the truth of their God subjectively in their lives.
But if I say there is no test that could refute the existence of God that does not mean that there is no evidence, as you seem to admit.

Say your were not a computer programmer, but you have a computer that you use. Can you prove the existence of the software code commands, if you do not know any coding languages? You would not even know what to look for. Your limitations does not mean code does not exist.

You would be limited to pointing out the hardware, since that is more obvious? God and faith are internal data, which is why science cannot find it outside. The philosophy of science does not allow use of internal brain data; neural coding language.

We all have had dreams to know these neural phenomena exist. However, you cannot know if my dream is real or true, since you cannot measure it from the outside. That is a limitation of science. My approach to God and religion is to explore their mind and heart exercises to see if I can generate data and reach the coding. Then you use internal science methods to investigate deeper.

 

[Brian2]

Please define the "spiritual side."

That which is not physical.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I think the flood was most likely local and that other floods at the same time killed others in other places and that God allowed people to survive everywhere.
Judging by the use of "all" in the OT as not always being 100% literal, I would say that not every living soul was killed. (and we know that anyway because Noah and his family were saved).

 

[Brian2]

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.

I don't need a test tube or science to show me that God exists or not. If you think science has discovered that God does not exist or that God is not needed, I don't think that either of those are true.

 

[Brian2]

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?

True it is not a good reason to dismiss universe-vomiting pixies or leprechauns, but that does not mean that I have to believe in those.
Equating that sort of thing with belief in God is just dismissive and patronising by skeptics and atheists and not worth considering really, or not worthy of argument status.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't and don't need to. I have a belief, you are making a claim, it is up to you to justify that claim. And you justify it to yourself but not to me, and I justify my beliefs to myself and not to you.

Yeah, that is all fair and well, as along as you know when you are subjective in effect. Because you might end up claiming something is true, when it is not that for the world we share.
Of course you can declare that some humans are not really relevant as humans in the end, but that can also be applied to you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't need a test tube or science to show me that God exists or not. If you think science has discovered that God does not exist or that God is not needed, I don't think that either of those are true.

Yeah, as long as you don't claim that your God is the objective source of morality, then okay. But if you go there, I will fight you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find it logically unacceptable for science or skeptics or atheists to state that it is known that God was not needed to beging life on earth.



Side tracking waste of time.
Saying life began without God is not possible in science even if science claimed to have overcome all the chemical problems for the formation of bodies in nature.



Side tracking waste of time. We are talking about the origin of life and what life it. So it has no relevance even if science cannot also logically say that no extra-dimensional aliens exist.

What "chemical problems for the formation of bodies in nature" are you referring to?

Oh hey, when did your God hypothesis overcome all of its logistical and evidential problems? Oh, it hasn't? But you still believe it anyway while at the same time trying to poke holes in the science you disagree with as though that will magically make your hypothesis true without your having to actually demonstrate it? Okey dokey. Doesn't make much sense to me. This is why I reject faith as unjustified belief that is not a pathway to truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The claim can also be evidence.

Perhaps, if there were other corroborating evidence backing up the claims.

Does a witness at a trial need to have his claims proven in order for them to be evidence?

Yes. It helps too, if they're actually identified and actually identified as witnesses to the events. Unlike the claims in the Bible

 

[SkepticThinker]

The same way you looked at everything and concluded that they did not need a designer, creator and life giver.

No. We did not come to our conclusions the same manner.

So what you did was, looked around and concluded that "everything" needs a designer, creator and life giver? And how did you reach that conclusion?

I suppose you also have faith that a designer, creator and life giver is not needed.

Nope. I have no use for faith, as explained several times now. I reject faith as useless. I reject faith as unjustified belief that doesn't reliably lead to accurate discernments between what is fact and what is fiction.

And from here we go around in circles about whose faith is justified and if you even have a faith and whose job it is to prove what to whom, and what does the scientific evidence say, and is evidence actually evidence if it cannot be falsified etc.

We're going around in circles because you just cannot seem to grasp that the person who is believing the thing without evidence is the faith-based believer. Rejecting or simply not accepting a claim that has been made without evidence is not a faith-based position. It is the only rational position to take! Are you using faith when you say, "I don't believe in universe-vomiting tortoises?" Or "I don't believe in leprechauns who sit on their treasures at the end of rainbows?" Of course not. The faith comes in when you declare such things exist without being able to demonstrate that they actually do exist.

I believe things for which there is sufficient evidence. I will believe anything that is evidenced. I would believe in god(s) if I were shown convincing evidence. I want to believe in as many true things as possible, while not believing in as many false things as possible. I will believe whatever the evidence indicates. That is not a faith-based position.

Please seriously think this over.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No time therefore there was no first cause because a cause needs time to act through.
A singularity does not mean that the universe did not exist in that singularity.
Quantum theory shows that space and particles can just randomly come appear so no need for a creator.
Trouble is it does not make sense imo and you cannot say that a designer, creator, life giver is not necessary and so extraneous.

I'm going to try this once more ...

I can look at the explanations for the universe, and see that they make sense without having to insert god(s) into the equation. And they do.
As myself and several other posters have pointed out, inserting a god into the equation doesn't provide any explanatory power. "God did it" tells us nothing about how or why or what processes were involved. It tells us nothing and therefore, isn't very useful. And it's not demonstrable. If you want to claim that a god is necessary, which seems to be what you're saying, then you need to demonstrate that. Show us why and how god(s) are necessary. Show us evidence for this god. Show us evidence that this god has done anything at all. I mean, if I told you that the great cosmic universe-vomiting tortoise in the sky vomited the universe into existence, would you believe me on the claim alone, or would you want some evidence to corroborate that, perhaps?

So when somebody tells me that god(s) are necessary for the formation of the universe, I don't accept the claim. Unless they can demonstrate the god(s) exist and can (and have) formed universes. And let's face it here, we're not just talking about some random god, right? We're talking about a very specific god that you believe in - the God of the Bible. And that claim comes with a ton of baggage that needs to be demonstrated before being accepted by critical thinkers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't and don't need to. I have a belief, you are making a claim, it is up to you to justify that claim. And you justify it to yourself but not to me, and I justify my beliefs to myself and not to you.

No, no, you've made the claim that brains and spirits/consciousness are separate things. I just gave you two pieces of evidence that indicate that is not the case. Your response? Just ignore it and believe what you want to believe anyway.

You have managed to actually demonstrate something here though - faith is useless to those who are interested in believing as many true things as possible while not believing as many false things as possible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Say your were not a computer programmer, but you have a computer that you use. Can you prove the existence of the software code commands, if you do not know any coding languages? You would not even know what to look for. Your limitations does not mean code does not exist.

You would be limited to pointing out the hardware, since that is more obvious? God and faith are internal data, which is why science cannot find it outside. The philosophy of science does not allow use of internal brain data; neural coding language.

We all have had dreams to know these neural phenomena exist. However, you cannot know if my dream is real or true, since you cannot measure it from the outside. That is a limitation of science. My approach to God and religion is to explore their mind and heart exercises to see if I can generate data and reach the coding. Then you use internal science methods to investigate deeper.

Umm, I guess you haven't ever heard of neuroscience - the exploration of biological and chemical processes that occur in the brain?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That which is not physical.

Once again, you tell me what spirit isn't, instead of what it is.

This is far to broad and vague to actually have any meaning.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think the flood was most likely local and that other floods at the same time killed others in other places and that God allowed people to survive everywhere.
Judging by the use of "all" in the OT as not always being 100% literal, I would say that not every living soul was killed. (and we know that anyway because Noah and his family were saved).

Instead of just repeating the claim that you've already made, could you try addressing the points I've made against it? I directly addressed this in the post you just responded to. Your claim here doesn't make any sense in light of what's written, as already pointed out.


5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 6 - New International Version

Wickedness in the World - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for...

www.biblegateway.com

That's not a description of a "local flood."

Also, you completely ignored my other point:

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim can also be evidence.
Does a witness at a trial need to have his claims proven in order for them to be evidence?

Legally eyewitness testimony is the weakest evidence allowed in a court of law. The Gospels do not have even that. None of them are eyewitness accounts at best they are hearsay. They are anonymous accounts written one to two generations after the events that they talk about. As a result they are mere rumors at best.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't need a test tube or science to show me that God exists or not.

Of course not, you've got faith.

This was your response, or lack thereof, to :
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.

If you think science has discovered that God does not exist or that God is not needed, I don't think that either of those are true.

Why are you saying this to me again when I just wrote a post about this very belief you hold that is blocking your ability to converse on this subject with atheists? I am not claiming "god does not exist." Please get that through your brain.

As to the "god is not needed part" that's on YOU and other believers to show that god IS needed. I would believe the claim if you could actually demonstrate it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

True it is not a good reason to dismiss universe-vomiting pixies or leprechauns, but that does not mean that I have to believe in those.

No, no, according to your methodology, we should believe in these as well. I mean, when did anyone demonstrate that universe-vomiting pixies didn't create the universe? Why don't you include them in your explanations of the universe?

Equating that sort of thing with belief in God is just dismissive and patronising by skeptics and atheists and not worth considering really, or not worthy of argument status.

I think this is a cop out. I'm trying to get you to think about your standards of evidence and your logical positions on this stuff. You know, like have a discussion. This appears to be the part where you just shut down, I guess.

 

[Polymath257]

True it is not a good reason to dismiss universe-vomiting pixies or leprechauns, but that does not mean that I have to believe in those.
Equating that sort of thing with belief in God is just dismissive and patronising by skeptics and atheists and not worth considering really, or not worthy of argument status.

The problem is that the evidence for God is precisely of the same type as that for pixies and leprechauns.

Or, perhaps, a better way to approach this is to ask *how* the evidence is different for a God than for leprechauns. Give an example of evidence for God that would not equally well apply to the existence of leprechauns.

 

[Polymath257]

That which is not physical.

Not a helpful answer. For example, is the game of chess physical? Not necessarily. Does that mean it is spiritual? No.

Is the number 5 physical? No. Does that mean it is spiritual? No.

So your definition is poor: it accepts things that simply don't qualify.

Time to try again..