The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My question stands as God is self-evident to me and most people.

No two of you can agree about what it is that you are seeing, which is why atheists tend to believe that you are seeing a part of your own mind, misinterpreting what it is, and projecting it onto the world.

Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical and are thus indistinguishable to me. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

Those are the kinds of answers I get from people like you that tell me that God is obvious, or as you worded it, self-evident, and how I know that the people telling me that they have experienced a god are only experiencing their own minds. They describe multiple gods with multiple personalities, each of which happens to think just like they do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Were you under the influence of drugs or alcohol when you wrote things like E=MC^2 shows God cannot in the future have worshipers in Heaven?

Weren't you just complaining that atheists are disrespectful for "assaulting" the ideas of believers? That describes your posting behavior pretty well.

Actually, my argument was people show respect or lack of it by the volume of speech pouring from their mouth. You have no respect for theists or religionists or you would not hover on a religious forum like a dog seeking to ingest its own vomit.

There you go again. What respect do you think you deserve? I'd say much less than you're getting. Everybody posting to you has been more polite than you are to them.

You are certainly demonstrating the truth of the OP: "Why do atheists incessantly argue?"

LOL. You can't stop arguing. Why do you incessantly argue?

 

[shmogie]

Anything not known to be impossible remains possible. No further demonstration of the possibility of abiogenesis apart from that sentence is necessary.



ID research has been sterile. Not a single useful idea has been generated by the search for an intelligent designer. This is exactly what we would expect would be the case if there is no god, or if there are gods that prefer to remain hidden, but not if there were an omniscient, omnipotent god that wants to be found, known, loved, obeyed, and worshiped.



It's not necessary.

Nor is it likely that we can confirm that abiogenesis occurred. The best that we can hope for is to find that only one path to a single type of protocell is possible, and then find fossil evidence of that cell having existed on earth - an unlikely scenario.

Even that wouldn't prove that the abiogenesis occurred on earth.

We'll likely have to be content with showing that small organic molecules spontaneously organizing themselves into metabolizing replicators over geologic time under conditions that may have existed on prebiotic earth is thermodynamically possible, maybe likely or even inevitable.



Science has made our lives longer, safer, healthier, more comfortable, and more interesting. Religion has given us nothing of value and much of negative value.

Would you have the scientists simply stop researching abiogenesis and begin praying instead?

They can research abiogenisis till the end of time, it makes no difference to me. Or, they could do what my best friend has done, a full professor of microbiology at a very well known California university, dedicate his research to the eradication of cancer. To me, a much better field for the good of people, rather than wasting time on that which doesn't mean much. Nevertheless, they are free to do whatever they choose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They can research abiogenisis till the end of time, it makes no difference to me. Or, they could do what my best friend has done, a full professor of microbiology at a very well known California university, dedicate his research to the eradication of cancer.

It's not an either/or proposition. We have the talent and resources to pursue both concomitantly.

To me, a much better field for the good of people, rather than wasting time on that which doesn't mean much. Nevertheless, they are free to do whatever they choose.

Can we assume from your silence that you have no disagreement with the other points I made about the abiogenesis remaining a possibility until it can be shown to be impossible, the sterility of ID, that abiogenesis need not be confirmed, and that it probably can't be?

 

[ChristineM]

This was created by the manipulation of DNA from a living organism. modifying the already existing information. This isn;t creating life it is manipulating life. The quote should say; the experiment you think was the creation of life...................... As I said, living DNA was required, not made. It was manipulated to change itś information to match what the experimenters wanted for their artificial cell. Designer organisms, perhaps, totally made organisms, no

My second link wasn't, dna was "totally," made

 

[ChristineM]

Well, of course the Bible says that God created the universe, it says he created all things, isnt the universe a thing ? God knows all things (that have occurred), he does not know all things that havent occurred ( except by prophecy he specifically brings about by his omnipotence or a desire to have things take a specific course in a specific case} However, he is flawlessly and perfectly prepared to deal with anything that might occur. Omniscience means knowing everything there is to know and everything there will be to know in the future.

Please provide verse numbers that specifically mention the universe.

So as you admitted, you believe he ius not omniscient, yet the bible says, in several places that he is.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, my argument was people show respect or lack of it by the volume of speech pouring from their mouth. You have no respect for theists or religionists or you would not hover on a religious forum like a dog seeking to ingest its own vomit. Proverbs 26:11

Again, non sequitur.

But, I don't think logic or reasoning will change your view. Perhaps this is something you would have to experience.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

Were you under the influence of drugs or alcohol when you wrote things like E=MC^2 shows God cannot in the future have worshipers in Heaven?

Are you sick or what? My grandfather died of alcohol and i have lost close friends to drugs. Your accusations are baseless and ignorant, only made because you are not clever enough to work out simple multiplication maths

AND WHEN DID I EVER WRITE "E=MC^2 shows God cannot in the future have worshipers in Heaven?" Show me where i wrote that or admit you are not telling the truth.

I said that E=MC^2 shows the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe.

 

[shmogie]

Please provide verse numbers that specifically mention the universe.

So as you admitted, you believe he ius not omniscient, yet the bible says, in several places that he is.

The Bible never says "omniscient". Don't confuse knowing something before it occurs, and knowing something because you have the power to bring it about. Two vastly different things

 

[shmogie]

My second link wasn't, dna was "totally," made

Sorry, I looked at both links, again. The DNA was NOT made, it was taken from a living organism, and manipulated. If it were true that DNA was totally made, there would be a huge hullabaloo, there wasn't because genetic manipulation has been around for a while. This was the first time the genes were manipulated to create a specific "new" organism from the manipulated genes. This has little, if anything to do with abiogenesis

 

[shmogie]

It's not an either/or proposition. We have the talent and resources to pursue both concomitantly.



Can we assume from your silence that you have no disagreement with the other points I made about the abiogenesis remaining a possibility until it can be shown to be impossible, the sterility of ID, that abiogenesis need not be confirmed, and that it probably can't be?

I agree, abiogenesis can and will never be confirmed. You speak of the "sterility" of ID, but how much have considered it ? Have you looked at it from the cosmological point ? The absolute and virtually impossible chain of events that created an earth specifically designed for life (oops I said it). How about the numerous and specific studies by statisticians and those who work in the laws of probability about this occurrence ? How about the studies conducted of certain organisms that identify quandaries that the theory evolution can't explain ? There is a huge body of material from extremely reputable and educated scientists on these things, have you sought them out ? Have you looked at their research and considered it ? MY friend, being very well published in peer reviewed publications, as well as being extremely well educated microbiologist, believes in ID precisely based upon what he see's and understands. In his highly professional and well educated opinion based upon 35 years of research, he does not see darwinism, and abiogenesis as reasonable and scientifically verified theories. He believes they are a bridge way too far. Have you considered views like his ? Neither abiogenesis/macro evolution can be scientifically proven. Of course, the creation of all by God, or even the existence of God, cannot be scientifically proven. To me then the issue spills over into such things as philosophy and theology and logic.Is it reasonable to believe everything there is was created by itself for no reason at all. is it reasonable to believe nothing has any meaning to the entire universe, except the infinitesimally tiny spark of relative meaning that may exist between humans. Anyway, there is a lot more to ID than what many believe
any believe

 

[ChristineM]

The Bible never says "omniscient". Don't confuse knowing something before it occurs, and knowing something because you have the power to bring it about. Two vastly different things

The bible repeatedly states your god is all knowing, infinite understanding, knows all, knows it all, knows all things

All synonyms for omniscient

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, I looked at both links, again. The DNA was NOT made, it was taken from a living organism, and manipulated. If it were true that DNA was totally made, there would be a huge hullabaloo, there wasn't because genetic manipulation has been around for a while. This was the first time the genes were manipulated to create a specific "new" organism from the manipulated genes. This has little, if anything to do with abiogenesis

Don't be sorry, admit you are wrong
The second links specifically states the chemicals used to create the dna

And yes, in the science world there has been a huge "hullabaloo", as "hullabaloos" go in the science world. Seems in the creationists rush to hide it, they forgot to tell you.

 

[blü 2]

They can research abiogenisis till the end of time, it makes no difference to me. Or, they could do what my best friend has done, a full professor of microbiology at a very well known California university, dedicate his research to the eradication of cancer. To me, a much better field for the good of people, rather than wasting time on that which doesn't mean much. Nevertheless, they are free to do whatever they choose.

Interesting.

Why do you think the eradication of cancer is possible?

Because scientists pursue the answer using scientific method, that is, gathering evidence, developing hypotheses, testing them, repeat as necessary, reasoning honestly from examinable evidence?

Exactly like abiogenesis researchers?

 

[blü 2]

They can research abiogenisis till the end of time, it makes no difference to me.

Then why do you give the strong impression that you feel very threatened by the idea that science may find an answer to abiogenesis?

 

[shmogie]

Then why do you give the strong impression that you feel very threatened by the idea that science may find an answer to abiogenesis?

Why would I feel threatened ? I know it won't happen, but if it does I will have to re examine my beliefs. I have no idea why you get this feeling, perhaps you wish it, I don't know, but you are wrong.

 

[shmogie]

The bible repeatedly states your god is all knowing, infinite understanding, knows all, knows it all, knows all things

All synonyms for omniscient

Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

[blü 2]

Why would I feel threatened ? I know it won't happen, but if it does I will have to re examine my beliefs. I have no idea why you get this feeling, perhaps you wish it, I don't know, but you are wrong.

Noted.

It might be advantageous to re-examine them before then, particularly on how well the bible, read in a straightforward way, accords with reality ─ they really did think the earth was flat, for example ─ but that of course is a matter for you.

 

[Skwim]

The Bible never says "omniscient".

So what? The Bible never says "omnipresent," "omnibenovolent," or "triune," yet they're all characteristics ascribed to god by almost all Christians.

As for god's omniscience, it's indicated in several passages.

om·nis·cience
ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/
noun
noun: omniscience
the state of knowing everything.
​

1 John 3:20
for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4
You know what I’m going to say long before I say it. It is true, Eternal One, that You know everything and everyone.

Job 37:16
Do you know how the clouds hang in the sky? Do you know the miracles of God, who knows everything?

Hebrews 4:13
“Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account”

.​

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You speak of the "sterility" of ID, but how much have considered it ?

Certainly enough to know that it has generated no useful ideas. If you disagree, please nae a useful idea from ID and how it has improved the human condition.

How about the numerous and specific studies by statisticians and those who work in the laws of probability about this occurrence ? How about the studies conducted of certain organisms that identify quandaries that the theory evolution can't explain ? There is a huge body of material from extremely reputable and educated scientists on these things, have you sought them out ? Have you looked at their research and considered it ?

I'm familiar with arguments of that natures. Hoyle's fallacy is the best known example.

MY friend, being very well published in peer reviewed publications, as well as being extremely well educated microbiologist, believes in ID precisely based upon what he see's and understands. In his highly professional and well educated opinion based upon 35 years of research, he does not see darwinism, and abiogenesis as reasonable and scientifically verified theories. He believes they are a bridge way too far. Have you considered views like his ?

Yes.

Neither abiogenesis/macro evolution can be scientifically proven.

Evolution is settled science. Abiogenesis is a different matter.

there is a lot more to ID than what many believe

Then tell us what that is.