Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[riley2112]

I'll put it another way for you.

Well, Einstein was a scientific pantheist, as are most physicists you will find. I technically consider myself one at the same time as being an atheist.

it has to do with the spirituality you assign that which you study. For example, I know that we are all made of elements forged in the hearts of a star billions of years ago. The knowledge of that gives you a certain perspective of things. I do not doubt that as a scientist Dawkins is probably a very spiritual man himself. Maybe not in the way you recognize it, but I understand how he sees things.

Evolutionary Biology, as a quick example. Studying this makes you realize just how close we are to the life on this planet. The genetic trait that defines how long you sleep, for example, is the same in a fruit fly, suggesting a very distant concestor. (co-ancestor)

Copied this from my debate with Storm, I said this over there but it seems like you might appreciate it in this context as well.

Thank you for getting back to me on this. I, being a small town country boy may need some time to wrap my mind around this. So I may take a day or so to read up on the statement you have shown me. Again , thank you for explaining something that I have not thought of until now.

 

[McBell]

I'm afraid that's not what it's about..
Do scientists come to theologists when they want something verified? No!
Nor do theologists go to scientists when they want something verified..

If you wish to see science as "the 'b' all and end all", that's up to you!
Would you consider statistical evidence as 'scientific'? Many scientific hypothesise rely on the results of various tests .. What confidence interval is acceptable? 50% .. 70% .. or 90% ?

Actually, scientists can't agree amongst themselves whether God exists, any more than anybody else

The thing about belief in God, is that as well as the evidence that surrounds us .. people, scriptures, the wonder of the universe etc, we have our own conscience.

People who constantly ask for evidence of the existence of God are not only annoying, but rather immature, imo.
There must be a better way of debating .. either come up with some interesting points .. or shut up!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You: Prove God exists
Me: Can you prove that He doesn't
You: I don't have to prove it, but you do
Me: What an interesting debate .. I'm sure we've all learnt a lot

[ I can do anything better than you can ,, no you can't .. yes I can .. no you can't yes I can .. .. .. hello, hello .. I smell the blood of a 'devil man' ]

 

[camanintx]

People who constantly ask for evidence of the existence of God are not only annoying, but rather immature, imo.

Besides, without a logically consistent definition of God all the evidence in the world won't do you any good.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm afraid that's not what it's about..
Do scientists come to theologists when they want something verified? No!
Nor do theologists go to scientists when they want something verified..

Why would a scientist, who relies on objective empirical evidence, come to a theologian, who relies on subjective personal experience and deals with unverifiable supernatural philosophies, for verification of a natural occurrence?

Conversely, how would a scientist verify the supernatural for a theologian? All they could do would be to tell the theologian that there is no evidence to back their claim.

If you wish to see science as "the 'b' all and end all", that's up to you!

I see science as a verifiable way of finding natural answers to the questions surrounding the workings of our natural world.

Would you consider statistical evidence as 'scientific'? Many scientific hypothesise rely on the results of various tests .. What confidence interval is acceptable? 50% .. 70% .. or 90% ?

First of all, the Theory of Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a Scientific Theory based on objective empirical evidence, predictability and independent verification.

Secondly, statistics are not facts. Scientific Facts are based on observational evidence that is repeatable, testable, predictable, universal, and absolute.

Actually, scientists can't agree amongst themselves whether God exists, any more than anybody else

Belief in God(s) is independent of scientific fact. Yes, their are many scientists who believe in God. But they cannot provide objective empirical evidence that that God(s) exists.

The thing about belief in God, is that as well as the evidence that surrounds us .. people, scriptures, the wonder of the universe etc, we have our own conscience.

Yes! This is subjective personal experience. Not empirical evidence.

People who constantly ask for evidence of the existence of God are not only annoying, but rather immature, imo.

I feel the same about those who insist that they can "prove" God, or have "evidence" of God.

There must be a better way of debating .. either come up with some interesting points .. or shut up!

What points? There is no objective empirical evidence of any deities existence. Does this mean such a deity does not exist? Scientifically, yes.
However, since most god concepts involve the supernatural, these concepts tend to fall outside of the empiricality necessary for scientific evidence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You: Prove God exists
Me: Can you prove that He doesn't
You: I don't have to prove it, but you do
Me: What an interesting debate .. I'm sure we've all learnt a lot

Those who make extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence.

Me: I believe in a god.
Them: Prove he exists!!
Me: There is no evidence, my belief relies on faith alone and does not contradict any known scientific evidence.


Learn anything?

[ I can do anything better than you can ,, no you can't .. yes I can .. no you can't yes I can .. .. .. hello, hello .. I smell the blood of a 'devil man' ]

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Do scientists come to theologists when they want something verified? No!
Nor do theologists go to scientists when they want something verified..

People who constantly ask for evidence of the existence of God are not only annoying, but rather immature, imo.

This is a position of Fideism, which many people particular in the scientific field hold as being inferior however personally I do not mind seeing as I debate the applicability of cognitive or even emotive processing to the concept of 'God'. However, when 'debating' it is important for each side to have evidence to support their arguments; on the other hand when 'discussing' it is less important to have evidence to support their positions (note the difference in terminology between the two - its important).

Many people tend towards debates rather than discussions, there are many reasons for this, but one of them is that we want to feel that what we are doing 'means' something or that it is beneficial in some way, such as spreading the teachings of _____. However to do such a thing is to argue that a given position is true and to provide arguments to that effect, those arguments need evidence (though the form of that evidence is non-specific). The Fideist on the other hand should tend towards discussion rather than debate, because it is a position that holds that such evidence is non-essential or cannot be examined in a traditional rational method (which once again does not mean it is inferior). As such, the Fideist is dramatically hampered in debates, because they have little to support their arguments with.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I see science as a verifiable way of finding natural answers to the questions surrounding the workings of our natural world.

Yes, of course .. as do I

First of all, the Theory of Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a Scientific Theory based on objective empirical evidence, predictability and independent verification.

What are you trying to say .. that "theories" are foolproof, or just "the theory of evolution" is?
[ whatever that is! Needs defining, as there are many parts/beliefs ]

Secondly, statistics are not facts. Scientific Facts are based on observational evidence that is repeatable, testable, predictable, universal, and absolute.

That's right, 'statistics' are NOT facts .. and repeated experiments can give different results, and different statistical formula's can be applied to them

Belief in God(s) is independent of scientific fact. Yes, their are many scientists who believe in God. But they cannot provide objective empirical evidence that that God(s) exists.

If by "objective empirical evidence", you mean physical evidence, then no .. God is not physical.
However, evidence comes in many shapes & sizes, that I would term as "scientific".
It's the conclusions that we draw from this evidence that is argued upon .. and why it's possible for serious scientists to believe in God !
ie. they don't feel scientifically unjustified to believe

Does this mean such a deity does not exist? Scientifically, yes.
However, since most god concepts involve the supernatural, these concepts tend to fall outside of the empiricality necessary for scientific evidence.

What in effect you are saying, is that anything non-physical or that mankind can not currently observe or understand is not "scientifically" proven .. that is NOT the same as saying "something doen't exist" !

The word supernatural conjures up a whole range of superstitions / beliefs .. I'm only referring to ONE CONCEPT OF GOD .. the Creator of the Universe .. it's more a psychological understanding than a physical one. You keep on repeating 'evidenc/proof/evidence/proof' referring to physical evidence, as if you "know absolutely" that unless you can 'see it', it's not there!
Perhaps you're 'a god '.. you seem to think that you are very clever, and your knowledge is absolute :foot:

Those who make extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence.

Overall, I can agree with that
ie. evidence is required in order to establish truth

However, whatever evidence I produce, somebody who does not wish to acknowledge the truth about our existence WILL NOT ACCEPT IT .. such as asking for 'God to show Himself' etc, and sneering

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disbelievers (usually) claim that "they don't know" where the universe / intelligence / consciousness originates .. they can only tell us "it evolved"

.. well, yes .. so it did! Are you telling me that the correct "scientific belief" is that there is no origin?
or .. maybe you'll skip it, and say that science doesn't answer that question ..or it doesn't need an origin.

I'll believe what I want to believe (including that it's in agreement with scientific principles)
..and you can believe whatever you like!

 

[McBell]

However, whatever evidence I produce, somebody who does not wish to acknowledge the truth about our existence WILL NOT ACCEPT IT .. such as asking for 'God to show Himself' etc, and sneering

I agree.
Those dead set on not looking at evidence will not see it.

On the other hand, those dead set on proving their point will accept anything and everything they think proves their point.
Some to the ridiculousness of presenting things that they cannot reasonably show how their "evidence" is connected to what they claim it is evidence for.

Disbelievers (usually) claim that "they don't know" where the universe / intelligence / consciousness originates .. they can only tell us "it evolved"

Which is shown by the theory of evolution.
Evolution is not an explanation on how life began.
That is abiogenesis.

Evolution only deals with life AFTER it began, regardless of how.

.. well, yes .. so it did! Are you telling me that the correct "scientific belief" is that there is no origin?

No, the correct scientific belief is that evolution does not deal or address the beginning of life.

Believe it or not, evolution is not the only science in the world.

So to assume that science does not deal with the beginning of life simply because evolution does not deal with the beginning of life is dishonest at best.

or .. maybe you'll skip it, and say that science doesn't answer that question ..or it doesn't need an origin.

please see above where it is explained that science is much more than just evolution.

I'll believe what I want to believe (including that it's in agreement with scientific principles)

Perhaps one day you will get over yourself and accept that you might be wrong...

 

[cottage]

People who constantly ask for evidence of the existence of God are not only annoying, but rather immature, imo.
There must be a better way of debating .. either come up with some interesting points .. or shut up!

Translation: It's frustrating being unable to provide proof of God's existence, which of course would settle the matter at a stroke, therefore I'll insult the unbeliever instead.

You: Prove God exists
Me: Can you prove that He doesn't
You: I don't have to prove it, but you do
Me: What an interesting debate .. I'm sure

The theist cannot prove God's existence since it is only a belief.
To ask the sceptic to disprove what the theist can't prove to himself is thus an evident absurdity.
[/quote]

 

[muhammad_isa]

Translation: It's frustrating being unable to provide proof of God's existence..

The theist cannot prove God's existence since it is only a belief.

No .. and no!
The case of "God versus the disbeliever" is not "a one day trial" .. there's so much evidence, that it takes a lot of time and effort to produce

Only a belief?

Believe what you like!

 

[McBell]

No .. and no!
The case of "God versus the disbeliever" is not "a one day trial" .. there's so much evidence, that it takes a lot of time and effort to produce

Only a belief?

Believe what you like!

It is in fact only a belief.
You have no empirical evidence to present to support your claim.
Thus the reason you have no choice but to fall back on "prove god does not exist".
You have to shift the burden of proof because you have no empirical evidence to show.

 

[cottage]

No .. and no!
The case of "God versus the disbeliever" is not "a one day trial" .. there's so much evidence, that it takes a lot of time and effort to produce

Only a belief?

Believe what you like!

The palm across the face doesn't really explain why or how religious faith is something more than or different from a belief. So...if it isn't a belief then what is it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if it isn't a belief then what is it?

It is a belief ! A belief founded on a strong foundation.
The thing is, that you seem to think that your beliefs are 'foolproof', which I can assure you they are NOT .. science or no science.

And yes, your doubt in the existence of God is a belief .. and not based on scientific evidence .. purely the lack of (according to you)

 

[cottage]

It is a belief ! A belief founded on a strong foundation.
The thing is, that you seem to think that your beliefs are 'foolproof', which I can assure you they are NOT .. science or no science.

And yes, your doubt in the existence of God is a belief .. and not based on scientific evidence .. purely the lack of (according to you)

I'm afraid that is wrong on all counts. My beliefs most certainly are not foolproof and scientific evidence or lack of is not the sole criterion of proof. My scepticism is based on the incoherence of religious beliefs and propositions that are based on doctrine, which therefore presume to give an answer in advance of the question. This thread is good example, where evolution is questioned not because of genuine doubts concerning the science or the methodology, but because it is perceived as being contrary to a doctrinal belief held from faith. Science can be wrong, whereas theists make no such admission. And that is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

 

[muhammad_isa]

My beliefs most certainly are not foolproof and scientific evidence or lack of is not the sole criterion of proof. My scepticism is based on the incoherence of religious beliefs and propositions that are based on doctrine

OK, but we weren't discussing that, atm..

This thread is good example, where evolution is questioned not because of genuine doubts concerning the science or the methodology, but because it is perceived as being contrary to a doctrinal belief..

I don't think that I've questioned evolution in this thread..
I will say that I believe that Almighty God is the Evolver, the Shaper of Beauty, the Arranger

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And yes, your doubt in the existence of God is a belief.

Not believing something is not a belief, by definition. If I say "I don't believe in bigfoot", is that a belief?

 

[Photonic]

I find it sad that anyone could consider a lack of a belief a belief. The truth is even a rock or a chair could be described as atheist.

So no, there is no believing involved. To stand here and attempt to substantiate such a position with allegorical "evidence" is insulting yourself as much as us.

 

[Storm]

Not believing something is not a belief, by definition. If I say "I don't believe in bigfoot", is that a belief?

It depends.

Are you undecided on the matter, or do you think Bigfoot has been debunked?

In the latter case, you have accepted the truth of a proposition, albeit a negative one. That's belief.

I find it sad that anyone could consider a lack of a belief a belief. The truth is even a rock or a chair could be described as atheist.

So no, there is no believing involved. To stand here and attempt to substantiate such a position with allegorical "evidence" is insulting yourself as much as us.

I disagree. Atheism is an opinion, not applicable to inanimate objects or indeed, conscious entities who lack comprehension (dogs and babies).

That said, whether atheism is a belief or not is entirely dependent on the individual atheist, and no blanket statement can be made.

 

[Photonic]

It depends.

Are you undecided on the matter, or do you think Bigfoot has been debunked?

In the latter case, you have accepted the truth of a proposition, albeit a negative one. That's belief.


I disagree. Atheism is an opinion, not applicable to inanimate objects or indeed, conscious entities who lack comprehension (dogs and babies).

That said, whether atheism is a belief or not is entirely dependent on the individual atheist, and no blanket statement can be made.

I disagree completely. Atheism is a defining term, about the state, not the belief. I am an atheistic scientific pantheist.

 

[Storm]

I disagree completely. Atheism is a defining term, about the state, not the belief. I am an atheistic scientific pantheist.

Support/ elaborate? I gave clear explanation, you should return the courtesy.

 

[Photonic]

Support/ elaborate? I gave clear explanation, you should return the courtesy.

My point is that atheism is not anti-theist. If it was defined as such I would agree. But it's like saying something is asexual. It doesn't have a sex. Atheism is the lack of theism not the belief in a lack of theism.