There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Audie]

Are you saying that since science has found a way that DNA repair could have happened through evolution then that shows that God was not needed?

Seriously, try responding to what is said in the
post?

What YOU said was dictionary- level
example of confirmation bias.

Now, I wont say confirmation bias is
" bad". It's human nature; we all do it.
It's kind of nice, seeing only good in
those you love, say.

Why try to deny it? Of course you
see " god' everywhere.

But do you truly know if god exists?
You don't. Do you truly know his nature?

You choose to think you see gods hand.
Surely you don't deny that.
You could even be right.

Confirmation bias is not automatically wrong,.
for all that it negates clear thinking.

The trick is to be aware that everyone does it, and
take steps to neutralize it.
If clear thinking is any kind of goal.

Denying that you do it just assures muddled
thinking. Poor basis for belief. Poor show of respect
for such god as there may be.

 

[Brian2]

If I demonstrate that I can reach the cereal at the top of the cupboard, all by myself, would you propose that God helped me when I brought you a bowl of Coco-pops?

If you did that I would think that a little dog would need some assistance to do that but not necessarily assistance from God.
And when science shows a possible evolutionary way for DNA repair to have developed, that does not mean that science has shown that God is not involved.
What you are suggesting is that if science finds a natural mechanism for lightning or anything for that matter, that means that God had nothing to do with it.
The God of the gaps idea was not true but some people, esp skeptics like to bring it us as a straw man and say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, "Look science has filled another gap, almost out of gaps, looks like God is needed for nothing". This is as bad an argument as the God of the Gaps argument.
But of course along the way in filling in the gaps, science has filled them with things that science is not even sure about anyway, such as the mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but that is an aside and has not much to do with the existence of DNA repair mechanism being subjective evidence for God for me.

 

[Polymath257]

No, the evidence is the existence of mechanisms to fix broken DNA.

And how does that connect to a deity? Especially when there are simple, natural explanations?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you saying that since science has found a way that DNA repair could have happened through evolution then that shows that God was not needed?

It is certainly evidence that no God is required for such a mechanism.

 

[Polymath257]

Your P1 and C don't describe what I said.
But God is an omniscient, omnipresent (in time and space), all powerful spirit.

Well, that is the claim. Which means that it is even *more* difficult to show existence.

 

[Brian2]

Seriously, try responding to what is said in the
post?

What YOU said was dictionary- level
example of confirmation bias.

Now, I wont say confirmation bias is
" bad". It's human nature; we all do it.
It's kind of nice, seeing only good in
those you love, say.

Why try to deny it? Of course you
see " god' everywhere.

But do you truly know if god exists?
You don't. Do you truly know his nature?

You choose to think you see gods hand.
Surely you don't deny that.
You could even be right.

Confirmation bias is not automatically wrong,.
for all that it negates clear thinking.

The trick is to be aware that everyone does it, and
take steps to neutralize it.
If clear thinking is any kind of goal.

Denying that you do it just assures muddled
thinking. Poor basis for belief. Poor show of respect
for such god as there may be.

If you show me a clear example of confirmation bias on my part I hope I can see it and agree with you. But make it clear. Don't just say "That's an example of confirmation bias without saying what the example is, for example.

 

[Polymath257]

It is as I said:
But it does not matter if science has or has not found a possible mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair. It is just the existence of DNA repair that is my subjective evidence for God having a hand in it.

And how, exactly, do you jump from one to the other? Given that there are natural ways to get such DNA repair, why introduce another assumption? Especially one that cannot be otherwise tested?

I have not seen God so cannot describe God in the terms you want.

This comes across as 'I have this imaginary being that is the explanation of anything I don't understand, but cannot describe to you, but anything I don't understand is evidence for the existence of this being'.

 

[blü 2]

It is as I said:
But it does not matter if science has or has not found a possible mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair. It is just the existence of DNA repair that is my subjective evidence for God having a hand in it.

So you agree it isn't really evidence for God at all? Well, that at least makes sense.

I have not seen God so cannot describe God in the terms you want.

The evidence against the objective reality of God is pretty substantial. God never appears, never says, never does, there are no photos, or videos, the world behaves exactly as if God existed only as a variety of ideas in individual brains, there are no demonstrable material benefits (such as restoration of health) attached to belief in God, belief in God is no guarantee of human character, pro rata believers don't live longer or better than non-believers ─ and so on and so on.

 

[Audie]

If you show me a clear example of confirmation bias on my part I hope I can see it and agree with you. But make it clear. Don't just say "That's an example of confirmation bias without saying what the example is, for example.

I just did. How much spoon feeding must you
have? You believe in God so everythromycin g yiu see proves you are right.
Plz look up what confirmation bias is.

 

[Yerda]

If you did that I would think that a little dog would need some assistance to do that but not necessarily assistance from God.
And when science shows a possible evolutionary way for DNA repair to have developed, that does not mean that science has shown that God is not involved.

I guess I can agree with that.

I think the most we can say is that in trying to explain the existence of DNA repair mechanisms, adding God to the explanation doesn't give it any more power. Like the bowl of ceral example - you can explain it by me walking in and pouring a bowl of cereal. If you amend the explanation to "Yerda went in and poured a bowl of cereal and God was involved" it doesn't make it a better explanation. It just adds an element. You could say that "Yerda went in and poured a bowl of cereal and God was involved and also the ghost of Elvis Pressley". If you can add or remove an element without adding to or removing from the explanatory power of the statement then it is generally thought best to leave the element out.

Do you follow me?

What you are suggesting is that if science finds a natural mechanism for lightning or anything for that matter, that means that God had nothing to do with it.
The God of the gaps idea was not true but some people, esp skeptics like to bring it us as a straw man and say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, "Look science has filled another gap, almost out of gaps, looks like God is needed for nothing". This is as bad an argument as the God of the Gaps argument.
But of course along the way in filling in the gaps, science has filled them with things that science is not even sure about anyway, such as the mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but that is an aside and has not much to do with the existence of DNA repair mechanism being subjective evidence for God for me.

Ok. Is there something about the DNA repair example that makes it evidence for God in a way that other natural phenomena aren't?

 

[YoursTrue]

I hope that your beliefs bring you joy and comfort. However, please don't discard the mountains of evidence for evolution and common descent - it is really very compelling to everyone who understands it whether they are atheists, theists, deists, polytheists etc etc.

I have looked at it since I studied the Bible with more precision than when I was in school (and not bragging, but I was a scholarship winner so was not slow to follow and learn the teachings, and at the time had no reason to challenge the theory as taught, even whether it was right or wrong). I have since come to an understanding that (1) it is a theory (2) theoreticians as well as scientists will often stand up for the idea that the theory is true and substantiated by so-called evidence verifying the theory. Many ascertain the theory is true without question as to the general thesis of the theory. Yes they will say science uncovers different things so it's not static, but that doesn't mean the theory basically is true as the main rule. I do not accept the evidence as backup up the theory any longer, one reason is that there is nothing in realtime from the past, or at present to demonstrate that fish, for example, moved on by evolution, to eventually become humans. I understand the reasoning. No longer accept the theory as the general rule as to how various forms of animals came to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

And how, exactly, do you jump from one to the other? Given that there are natural ways to get such DNA repair, why introduce another assumption? Especially one that cannot be otherwise tested?


This comes across as 'I have this imaginary being that is the explanation of anything I don't understand, but cannot describe to you, but anything I don't understand is evidence for the existence of this being'.

When you talk of imaginary beings, might I ask how you think DNA came about?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you talk of imaginary beings, might I ask how you think DNA came about?

Let me ask you something. Is everything I can think true, because I can think it?

 

[Polymath257]

When you talk of imaginary beings, might I ask how you think DNA came about?

DNA is a chemical. It 'came about' via chemistry, just like ALL chemicals do (whether they are involved with living things or not).

How much detail do you want? DNA has 4 types of nucleic acid, each consisting of some base with a sugar (deoxyribose) and a phosphate group. These link together chemically. RNA also has 4 bases, but one of the bases is different than those in DNA. Also, RNA has ribose instead of deoxyribose.

If you want to learn the chemistry of DNA and RNA, I would suggest a course in biochemistry. Such a course will also go into detail on how the various components are formed in living things today.

That said, I see no connection between the origin of DNA (or RNA) and any previous beings, whether imaginary or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

DNA is a chemical. It 'came about' via chemistry, just like ALL chemicals do (whether they are involved with living things or not).

How much detail do you want? DNA has 4 types of nucleic acid, each consisting of some base with a sugar (deoxyribose) and a phosphate group. These link together chemically. RNA also has 4 bases, but one of the bases is different than those in DNA. Also, RNA has ribose instead of deoxyribose.

If you want to learn the chemistry of DNA and RNA, I would suggest a course in biochemistry. Such a course will also go into detail on how the various components are formed in living things today.

That said, I see no connection between the origin of DNA (or RNA) and any previous beings, whether imaginary or not.

You are assuming there is an orderly past, present and furture, that is knowable, becasue the universe is epistemological fair and real.
Do you got any evindence of that?
If not, why do you believe in that?

 

[Yerda]

I have looked at it since I studied the Bible with more precision than when I was in school (and not bragging, but I was a scholarship winner so was not slow to follow and learn the teachings, and at the time had no reason to challenge the theory as taught, even whether it was right or wrong). I have since come to an understanding that (1) it is a theory (2) theoreticians as well as scientists will often stand up for the idea that the theory is true and substantiated by so-called evidence verifying the theory. Many ascertain the theory is true without question as to the general thesis of the theory. Yes they will say science uncovers different things so it's not static, but that doesn't mean the theory basically is true as the main rule. I do not accept the evidence as backup up the theory any longer, one reason is that there is nothing in realtime from the past, or at present to demonstrate that fish, for example, moved on by evolution, to eventually become humans. I understand the reasoning. No longer accept the theory as the general rule as to how various forms of animals came to be.

I see. All I can say is that every indepenent line of evidence supports the idea of common descent, that life changes over time and that all of life's variation is the product of this descent and change. But if you don't agree then I suppose there is nothing more to say here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the evidence is the existence of mechanisms to fix broken DNA.

How is that evidence? Let me put it another way. Please answer this question:

What is your testable hypothesis? What reasonable test could possibly refute it?

 

[Yerda]

You are assuming there is an orderly past, present and furture, that is knowable, becasue the universe is epistemological fair and real.
Do you got any evindence of that?
If not, why do you believe in that?

Because we assume that the models make sense and produce accurate predictions.

Wouldn't you say the geological record is good evidence of the orderly knowable past of the Earth?

 

[Audie]

I see. All I can say is that every indepenent line of evidence supports the idea of common descent, that life changes over time and that all of life's variation is the product of this descent and change. But if you don't agree then I suppose there is nothing more to say here.

Excellent idea

 

[YoursTrue]

I see. All I can say is that every indepenent line of evidence supports the idea of common descent, that life changes over time and that all of life's variation is the product of this descent and change. But if you don't agree then I suppose there is nothing more to say here.

I can't agree because where is the evidence supporting common descent? By evolution as per "natural selection" and/or "survival of the fittest," please? Remember, we're talking about evidence supporting the idea of common descent. Thanks.