Life From Dirt?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know that any apologist purposely lies about the evidence.

They're famous for it. It's called "Lying For Jesus" or Pious Fraud: "Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks. "

The father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, expressed this principle thusly: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

Here's one of my favorite examples: "there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce."

This is a lie. It's easily explained. Moreover, earlier in the same bit of apologetics, we read another lie: "whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it." This is a classic case of projection.

 

[Audie]

They're famous for it. It's called "Lying For Jesus" or Pious Fraud: "Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks. "

The father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, expressed this principle thusly: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

Here's one of my favorite examples: "there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce."

This is a lie. It's easily explained. Moreover, earlier in the same bit of apologetics, we read another lie: "whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it." This is a classic case of projection.

Let's see how this is all godly and good

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no 'burden of proof' for a belief. We are all free to believe whatever we want. and to say so.

There is a burden of proof for the claim being believed.

The 'burden of proof' only applies to a universally asserted truth claim. Which a personal belief is not. When someone says, "I believe" they have designated that whatever follows is applicable to themselves (hence, the "I").

What follows is a claim that is being believed.

Even if what they believe is in their own mind a universal truth, the "I" precedent in the statment supersedes it.

It does not exempt the claim being believed to have a burden of proof.

Also, the 'burden of proof' is misleadingly labeled if one is not philosophically minded. As it does not actually require that anyone prove anything to anyone else's satisfaction. That would be an impossible expectation. What it requires is a presentation of justification. "Proof", in the philosophical realm does not refer to changing minds or winning debates. It simply refers to the course of logical thought that lead to a posited conclusion.

I love it when people feel compelled to resort to mental gymnastics, just to avoid having to provide rational justification for their beliefs.

 

[PureX]

There is a burden of proof for the claim being believed.



What follows is a claim that is being believed.



It does not exempt the claim being believed to have a burden of proof.


I love it when people feel compelled to resort to mental gymnastics, just to avoid having to provide rational justification for their beliefs.

You are not in charge of what anyone else believes, or says they believe. Your judgement on the beliefs of others is therefor moot. Belief is irrelevant to whether or not a claim is being posited, or whether or not it's being posited as a universal truth.

 

[Audie]

There is a burden of proof for the claim being believed.



What follows is a claim that is being believed.



It does not exempt the claim being believed to have a burden of proof.


I love it when people feel compelled to resort to mental gymnastics, just to avoid having to provide rational justification for their beliefs.

How would you summarize the idea expressed in
the demo of gymnastics?

 

[Polymath257]

You are not in charge of what anyone else believes, or says they believe. Your judgement on the beliefs of others is therefor moot. Belief is irrelevant to whether or not a claim is being posited, or whether or not it's being posited as a universal truth.

That seems to be ignoring the difference between facts and opinions. It is a fact that there is a chair in my room. It is my opinion that tomatoes taste vile.

The difference is that one *can* be true (there is, in fact, a chair in my room) and the other cannot (it is neither true nor false that tomatoes are vile). Facts are about the 'outside world' and opinions are about the 'internal world'.

The problem is that those who believe in deities want those deities to be part of the outside world (facts) and not the inside (opinions, tastes, preferences).

Everyone has opinions, tastes, and preferences that are their own. They have to do with their individual reactions to the world around them.

Facts, on the other hand, are shared aspects of the world outside. They can be verified by anyone who wants to do the appropriate observations.

 

[PureX]

That seems to be ignoring the difference between facts and opinions. It is a fact that there is a chair in my room. It is my opinion that tomatoes taste vile.

The difference is that one *can* be true (there is, in fact, a chair in my room) and the other cannot (it is neither true nor false that tomatoes are vile). Facts are about the 'outside world' and opinions are about the 'internal world'.

The problem is that those who believe in deities want those deities to be part of the outside world (facts) and not the inside (opinions, tastes, preferences).

Everyone has opinions, tastes, and preferences that are their own. They have to do with their individual reactions to the world around them.

Facts, on the other hand, are shared aspects of the world outside. They can be verified by anyone who wants to do the appropriate observations.

None of this has anything to do with what I posted, which was about accurately identifying the various kinds of assertions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science is set up to discover things about the material universe, not to disprove the existence of God. That is something that skeptics want science to do by bringing in presumptions to the study of the scriptures that should not be there. eg presuming that the supernatural is BS.
This is the a priori belief that attempts to shoehorn all the evidence.
And yes, someone is projecting.

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote and just responded to some argument that only exists in your head. Or to the other poster who took great time to explain your repeated error here. And you just continue to make it. I mean ...

 

[Audie]

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote and just responded to some argument that only exists in your head. Or to the other poster who took great time to explain your repeated error here. And you just continue to make it. I mean ...

It's not just you who gets that non response

 

[InChrist]

Wait, creation is observable? How so?

So then how on earth are you detecting this creator in the first place and attributing all kinds of qualities to it?

And how does this answer my questions ...

How is that different than being poofed into existence by magic? Sounds like the same thing to me.
How does one "speak life into existence," exactly, and how would you demonstrate that such a thing occurred?

I mean, all you really said here is "we can't understand it." Oh great, then we can just make up anything, I guess.

This is just poetic nonsense.

No, I don’t think we can just make anything up. If the biblical scriptures are God’s Word, then they are a revelation of reality and truth. Why shouldn’t the One who claims to be the Creator of heaven and earth be capable of speaking things into existence?

 

[InChrist]

So what's the difference?

Difference between what?

 

[InChrist]

Many assumptions, little evidence.

Evidence surrounds us.

 

[InChrist]

No. You have a believing mind. A skeptic follows the evidence. There is evidence for abiogenesis. Bible believers cannot seem to find any evidence for their beliefs. Most believers will refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence.

The biblical scriptures are God’s word, therefore authoritative revelation, backed up by the evidence of creation everywhere.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I don’t think we can just make anything up. If the biblical scriptures are God’s Word, then they are a revelation of reality and truth. Why shouldn’t the One who claims to be the Creator of heaven and earth be capable of speaking things into existence?

There are serious questions concerning the provenance of the Bible based on the lack of evidence of original texts, authorship, and the fact that it was compiled edited and redacted very late. Yes IF God exists God is capable of speaking things into existence, you have to deal with sound reliable science which is lacking in the ancient scriptures. The evidence is clear and specific IF God Created our universe, earth and life it is in harmony with the knowledge of science. There is no objective evidence for any alternatives to the evidence of evolution and a universe over 13 billion years.. God does not Create contradictions in the objective Nature of our physical existence..

 

[shunyadragon]

The biblical scriptures are God’s word, therefore authoritative revelation, backed up by the evidence of creation everywhere.

There is no objective verifiable evidence to support this assertion. Like all diverse conflicting ancient religions this is a subjective assertion based on belief.

 

[PureX]

I love it when people feel compelled to resort to mental gymnastics, just to avoid having to provide rational justification for their beliefs.

No one is compelled to rationally justify their beliefs to you. You are not the judge of rational justification, nor of anyone else's right to believe whatever they choose to believe. Sadly, you don't seem to be able to accept that.

 

[Audie]

The biblical scriptures are God’s word, therefore authoritative revelation, backed up by the evidence of creation everywhere.

Above it was "if" it's God's word, followed by
a perfectly reasonable " then".

Now you pronounce it as a fact.

There is of course a lot of evidence regarding
the truth of Genesis.
Proof there was no flood isn't quite " everywhere
but, theres millions of square km where it is in your face.

 

[Polymath257]

Evidence surrounds us.

Really? Point out some.

Remember that evidence has to be able to distinguish between something and its alternative.

So, find something that distinguishes between a universe with a God and a universe without one.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I don’t think we can just make anything up. If the biblical scriptures are God’s Word, then they are a revelation of reality and truth. Why shouldn’t the One who claims to be the Creator of heaven and earth be capable of speaking things into existence?

Because sound waves don't do that. By what process does 'speaking' cause things to come into existence?

 

[Polymath257]

No one is compelled to rationally justify their beliefs to you. You are not the judge of rational justification, nor of anyone else's right to believe whatever they choose to believe. Sadly, you don't seem to be able to accept that.

Absolutely true. But then, if they do not, nobody else needs to take them seriously. At that point, they are no more justified than the person who claims to be Napoleon.