Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Phantasman]

Atheists can have faith in lots of different things. This is like asking "What kind of meat substitute do vegetarians prefer?". Then, of course, there are vegetarians who don't eat any meat substitutes - just as there are atheists who do not consider themselves to have "faith" in anything.

Yes, quite true. Faith is a belief of something not available to the 5 senses. My question was to provoke a response of how faith in a power above what we conceive appears to be absent in the atheist. That's all.

We use faith in the unseen everyday. Everyone does. What makes spirituality different.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, quite true. Faith is a belief of something not available to the 5 senses. My question was to provoke a response of how faith in a power above what we conceive appears to be absent in the atheist. That's all.

We use faith in the unseen everyday. Everyone does. What makes spirituality different.

All "faith" is not equal.

 

[Phantasman]

All "faith" is not equal.

I don't understand the comment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, quite true. Faith is a belief of something not available to the 5 senses. My question was to provoke a response of how faith in a power above what we conceive appears to be absent in the atheist. That's all.

We use faith in the unseen everyday. Everyone does. What makes spirituality different.

Well, for starters, we don't necessarily operate under the same definitions of faith. When applied to spiritual beliefs, it doesn't normally just mean something not sensed through the conventional senses, but something which you believe despite an absence of evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. This is usually the definition of faith used in debates where a convincing rational or evidence-based argument for a spiritual claim cannot be given.

In this sense, to say we all have faith isn't strictly true. It's fair to say we all have beliefs in things we don't necessarily know, but that's not the same thing as operating on an assumption without - or contrary to - evidence. While you could say, for example, that to believe the sun will rise tomorrow is a faith-based position because you cannot know that the sun rill rise, you must first consider whether that belief is based on a reasonable expectation, given the evidence, and/or whether that position would be any different were said evidence different.

To elaborate, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I am not certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, so someone could say that this belief I have is faith-based. However, I maintain that the sun will rise tomorrow only because the sun has risen every day of my life for as long as I have been alive, and I have no reason to conclude that tomorrow will be any different. On top of this, if i so wished, I could actually look up predictions of exactly when the sun will rise and see if they match with reality, and I could do this every day with likely perfect success and accuracy. So, my expectation that the sun will rise is based not on faith, but on the direct experience and evidence of the sun rising.

If, however, we lived in a Universe in which the sun didn't rise regularly every morning (let's say, it rose 1 out of every 3 mornings), and there was absolutely no reliable method of predicting which day the sun will rise, my belief that the sun would rise tomorrow would be a faith-based position, as I would lack the justification I had for it above. In such a situation, I most likely wouldn't be holding the same expectation, so therefore my position cannot be said to be without a basis on evidence or reason.

 

[gnostic]

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Nothing in science is 100%, questfortruth.

Clearly you don't understand maths, because science is never "unconditional probability".

Science required conditions and the number one condition is evidence. And for anything to be "probable", it required LOT of evidences. The more you have, the more probable.

The less evidences there are, the less probable it is.

In science, if you are going to work in the lab environment, then it required testings, and REPEATED testings or experimentation.

Doing only one or two experiment is not enough. It required more data, which more evidences, without the numbers, scientist cannot statistical analyse the data, and they would not be able to make more accurate predictions.

Abiogenesis, or the scientific research on the origin of life, is still new, so it require more experiments. It is still hypothetical. What is hypothetical, is that life have thrived in this planet. What is theoretical, is life on other planets. We have no data, here to say one way or another about the rest of this galaxy, let alone other galaxies or the universe.

But in any case, here, on Earth, the evidences for life, and evolution, the probability is very high, because the evidences is there.

What isn't there, is God or gods. There are no evidences for their existence. They only exist in religions and in religious belief, which is not testable.

You cannot test a god...who is supposedly "invisible", and beyond every conceivable ways, where he can't be measured, quantified or detected, which would make you God no better than a pink unicorn or leprechaun or pixie.

Science can only deal with the physical, not imaginary being. In order to be test whatever scientists are examining, the evidences have to be detectable, measurable and quantifiable, which God failed in every categories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do atheists have faith in?

Faith is a weakness that atheists try to avoid.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do atheists have faith in?

Death & taxes.
Inductive reasoning gives very high confidence in those things occurring.

But this is something which transcends atheism.
Many of the faithful I know are of the same mind.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Faith is a weakness that atheists try to avoid.

You can have faith in yourself, others and in abstract concepts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever. I could care less how things came to be but more on where they are going. It's a useless waste of time since either side cannot prove or disprove each other.

This isn't correct.
The ability to disprove a theory is fundamental to the scientific method.
A theory, eg, general relativity, is deemed "useful" when it's been verified
repeatedly. It has applications in GPS technology & space flight.
But it's always possible that some day it could be disproven for some
conditions, thus all theories are only provisionally correct. They're never "true".
To paraphrase G Box....
All theories are wrong, but some are useful.

Religion is different, a belief that there exist a particular number of gods
(1, 2, 3 or even more) is neither provable nor disprovable, hence it's
"not even wrong".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What do atheists have faith in?

Most atheists are rational skeptics and empiricists, meaning that they don't have religious type faith in anything, that term being synonymous with unjustifed belief (I don't use the word faith to refer to justified belief such as the sun rising in the morning because of the ambiguity).

Note that an atheist need not be a rational skeptic and might indulge in unjustified beliefs. I suppose that if I believed that there were no gods, but that the stars controlled our lives (astrology) or that I could perform incantations that had magical consequences, I'd still be an atheist, but also a faith based thinker.

We use faith in the unseen everyday. Everyone does.

I don't, at least not in the sense I just described. This is where the confusion comes in - when we use the same word to refer to two different and distinct ideas, justified belief and unjustified belief. This is called equivocation, and when it leads to an error in reasoning, it is called an equivocation fallacy.

Here's an obvious example of this fallacy: Banks are a safe place to put money, rivers have banks, therefore one should bury his money in a riverbank.

By using two meanings of the same word in the same argument, we come to an erroneous conclusion.

Imagine if you named both of your daughters Faith and called them both by that name. You'd probably quickly come to realize that you should call at least one of them by a different name. That's what I've done with the word faith. I use it for only one of the two ideas called faith for the same reason.

 

[Valjean]

I am unconcerned with "your" truth. I don't waste time on questions that cannot be answered. Flat earth, round earth. Evolution, creation. Conservative liberal. Spiritual deity, atheist.

I wasn't aware that there was 'individual' truth

Yes, quite true. Faith is a belief of something not available to the 5 senses. My question was to provoke a response of how faith in a power above what we conceive appears to be absent in the atheist. That's all.

I question your definition of faith. Our senses are pretty limited, but there are other ways of researching information. There's a great deal of evidence for many things not directly perceptible.

All "faith" is not equal.

I don't understand the comment.

He means that there's an epistemic hierarchy of certainty, I think.
In a Cartesian sense (I think, therefore I am), almost nothing is certain; everything but your own existence is taken on faith, but this isn't generally a useful definition.

Generally, we have enough evidence that fire will burn, the sun will rise tomorrow or the Earth is round to consider these facts, for all practical purposes.

Faith in God, however, has no empirical support at all. All attempts to justify it are factually or logically flawed.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Wow. You sure make the world a better place. How many years of psychology do you have under your belt?

Again, I just disagree. But what I posted was something my aunts boyfriend told me a decade ago, and also heard repeated by good ol' Dr Oz. Lack of identified purpose in life also causes suicidal thoughts. Like the lack of purpose of your last statement.

Are other higher species cognizant of purpose? Is there a "human purpose" gene that has evolved to prevents suicidal thoughts? Of course not! Suicide is a social phenomenon. Besides, your thoughts won't kill you, but your actions will. Overcoming the bodies natural instinct to survive is no simple task(a point you ignored). Try to think for yourself, and not use the thoughts of others. Do you think that suicide victims do not think that suicide will end their suffering, and is also the solution to their problem? It is YOU that clearly have no background in this subject.

After reading your other posts, I must apologize. I thought you wanted to share your insights on the topic of this thread. I didn't realize that you really have nothing to say, other than that you are happy, waiting for death, and considers philosophical arguments as added stress in your life. Don

 

[Phantasman]

Well, for starters, we don't necessarily operate under the same definitions of faith. When applied to spiritual beliefs, it doesn't normally just mean something not sensed through the conventional senses, but something which you believe despite an absence of evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. This is usually the definition of faith used in debates where a convincing rational or evidence-based argument for a spiritual claim cannot be given.

In this sense, to say we all have faith isn't strictly true. It's fair to say we all have beliefs in things we don't necessarily know, but that's not the same thing as operating on an assumption without - or contrary to - evidence. While you could say, for example, that to believe the sun will rise tomorrow is a faith-based position because you cannot know that the sun rill rise, you must first consider whether that belief is based on a reasonable expectation, given the evidence, and/or whether that position would be any different were said evidence different.

To elaborate, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I am not certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, so someone could say that this belief I have is faith-based. However, I maintain that the sun will rise tomorrow only because the sun has risen every day of my life for as long as I have been alive, and I have no reason to conclude that tomorrow will be any different. On top of this, if i so wished, I could actually look up predictions of exactly when the sun will rise and see if they match with reality, and I could do this every day with likely perfect success and accuracy. So, my expectation that the sun will rise is based not on faith, but on the direct experience and evidence of the sun rising.

If, however, we lived in a Universe in which the sun didn't rise regularly every morning (let's say, it rose 1 out of every 3 mornings), and there was absolutely no reliable method of predicting which day the sun will rise, my belief that the sun would rise tomorrow would be a faith-based position, as I would lack the justification I had for it above. In such a situation, I most likely wouldn't be holding the same expectation, so therefore my position cannot be said to be without a basis on evidence or reason.

I see your point, and agree. But let's take it a step further in your "sun" analogy if faith. Some are having faith that the earth is flat and the sun is moving around the earth. Others that the earth rotates and the sun appears on the horizon, basically stationary (to us). Two uses of faith, yet different. We have been given what to believe by appearances (to others).

Most of us have never been to space to see which is true. We base it on the views of others. Even in religion, people are told what to believe over what experience may detail differently. We all want purpose, and base that purpose on the faith given us by others. But the perception the mind see's can be errant in what is real. Sort of a scotoma of the mind.

When leaders of those who exclaim that they "heard God", they are alone when they heard him. Moses on a mountain top. Muhammad in a cave. Jesus when he separated himself from his disciples. He even told us to enter a closet and shut the door. Yet why do men congregate in great numbers to hear God? IMO, they congregate to hear (a) man. Their faith in hearing God becomes distorted. But they are receiving what they have "faith" in. Same with what other men (scientists) say as well. What man can truly view mans beginning? Or even his destiny?

Did Columbus discover America? Or Eric the Red? Or someone else? Does it matter?

Man becomes more aware as time goes on. The moon isn't made of green cheese. Hell isn't subterranean, and heaven in the clouds (as the church fathers thought). Our judicial system is based on faith that 12 jurors will make the correct decision with the "evidence" presented. But is it flawless? Has conclusive evidence been overturned after many years of faith in what evidence was presented at the time to unanimously convict someone who was innocent?

Belief is based on faith. Christians have faith God exists. Atheists have faith God doesn't exist. But both are limited by the knowledge their mind has received. Neither side can prove their belief. Faith determines what their mind dictates.

 

[Phantasman]

Faith in God, however, has no empirical support at all. All attempts to justify it are factually or logically flawed.

Only to those who are blind to it. Billions throughout history would disagree with you.

 

[Phantasman]

Are other higher species cognizant of purpose? Is there a "human purpose" gene that has evolved to prevents suicidal thoughts? Of course not! Suicide is a social phenomenon. Besides, your thoughts won't kill you, but your actions will. Overcoming the bodies natural instinct to survive is no simple task(a point you ignored). Try to think for yourself, and not use the thoughts of others. Do you think that suicide victims do not think that suicide will end their suffering, and is also the solution to their problem? It is YOU that clearly have no background in this subject.

After reading your other posts, I must apologize. I thought you wanted to share your insights on the topic of this thread. I didn't realize that you really have nothing to say, other than that you are happy, waiting for death, and considers philosophical arguments as added stress in your life. Don

It's not what I say, but how it's perceived.

Questions. Do you believe that man is the highest intellect in the Universe? That he has the highest form of understanding?

Clarity is arrived at through knowledge. Suicide is lack of clarity. It is a selfish ignorant reaction.

Apology accepted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not what I say, but how it's perceived.

Questions. Do you believe that man is the highest intellect in the Universe? That he has the highest form of understanding?

Clarity is arrived at through knowledge. Suicide is lack of clarity. It is a selfish ignorant reaction.

Apology accepted.

All that we can say for sure is that man is the most intelligent being on the Earth. I would say that it is highly likely, almost a sure thing, that there are other more intelligent beings elsewhere. Of course we may never know.

 

[Phantasman]

All that we can say for sure is that man is the most intelligent being on the Earth. I would say that it is highly likely, almost a sure thing, that there are other more intelligent beings elsewhere. Of course we may never know.

Correct. And our not knowing gives possibilities. It's not what we know, as much as what we are ignorant of.

To me, and I say "to me", spiritual gnosis is the quest for knowledge unknown. Not a basis for accepting what is known. It's merely a path of choice. Based on faith that the unknown becomes known (in the residence of the mind). After all, it is the mind that dictates who, what and where we are. Our reality is what our minds create for us.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It's not what I say, but how it's perceived.

Questions. Do you believe that man is the highest intellect in the Universe? That he has the highest form of understanding?

Clarity is arrived at through knowledge. Suicide is lack of clarity. It is a selfish ignorant reaction.

Apology accepted.

Then maybe you can explain what you meant by your own statements, "All those "arguments" serve no purpose. I have a great life without adding the stress of ignorance to it. I do not care what anyone thinks of me. It's not about me. I'm nothing. My happiness factor is quite high. I don't start threads, because I have nothing to ask, or exclaim. I am just another soul waiting to embrace death, and biding my time until it arrives"? Seems quite clear to me. Perception will always be the default position when hiding behind the thoughts of others. Your level of apathy and immotile pseudo-sophistry, is exactly what the great thinklers of the past had to endure. Can you imagine how far society would have evolved if everyone took the same simplistic, selfish, and diminished view of reality, as you do?

Intelligence(intellect) is a relative term. It must be compared to something else to have any meaning or relevance. For example, if you're locked in a closed room with a window, and you can think of 30 ways exit, and I can think of only two, then you are more intelligent(in this respect) than me. Until we can find another intelligent life form in the Universe to compare ours too, your question is simply nonsensical(like time before the BB). But we are the most highly specialized organism on THIS planet.

Finally, victims of suicide are quite clear in their objective, and have no problems with clarity. It is hope, and the right social options that they lack. The "selfish ignorant reaction", is merely YOUR selfish and condemning interpretation. Don

 

[Phantasman]

Then maybe you can explain what you meant by your own statements, "All those "arguments" serve no purpose. I have a great life without adding the stress of ignorance to it. I do not care what anyone thinks of me. It's not about me. I'm nothing. My happiness factor is quite high. I don't start threads, because I have nothing to ask, or exclaim. I am just another soul waiting to embrace death, and biding my time until it arrives"? Seems quite clear to me. Perception will always be the default position when hiding behind the thoughts of others. Your level of apathy and immotile pseudo-sophistry, is exactly what the great thinklers of the past had to endure. Can you imagine how far society would have evolved if everyone took the same simplistic, selfish, and diminished view of reality, as you do?

Intelligence(intellect) is a relative term. It must be compared to something else to have any meaning or relevance. For example, if you're locked in a closed room with a window, and you can think of 30 ways exit, and I can think of only two, then you are more intelligent(in this respect) than me. Until we can find another intelligent life form in the Universe to compare ours too, your question is simply nonsensical(like time before the BB). But we are the most highly specialized organism on THIS planet.

Finally, victims of suicide are quite clear in their objective, and have no problems with clarity. It is hope, and the right social options that they lack. The "selfish ignorant reaction", is merely YOUR selfish and condemning interpretation. Don

Wow. Way out there, Don.

When one loves others, his/her own life is not escalated above others, which is clearly your thought process.

When one commits suicide, they are only concerned with how THEY feel and not how the act effects others that must continue living with the act. Yet you don't see it as selfish, since their only concern is how it effects themselves.

Maybe you need to reread what suicide is. To give ones life for another is not suicide. To take ones own life without regard for others, is selfish, no matter how you try to explain it to me.

Regarding me as selfish from my views, seems pretty ignorant from my perspective. You don't know me at all, and those who do, would disagree with your assessment, from or brief conversation.

Judge not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I see your point, and agree. But let's take it a step further in your "sun" analogy if faith. Some are having faith that the earth is flat and the sun is moving around the earth. Others that the earth rotates and the sun appears on the horizon, basically stationary (to us). Two uses of faith, yet different. We have been given what to believe by appearances (to others).

But neither necessarily are a result of faith. Faith, using the definition I gave earlier, is believing something despite an absence of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. If you believe the world is flat or otherwise, it may be that you actually have sufficient reason to believe so. A position, on its own, isn't necessarily faith-based unless the person who accepts the position does so for no reason other than faith.

Man becomes more aware as time goes on. The moon isn't made of green cheese. Hell isn't subterranean, and heaven in the clouds (as the church fathers thought). Our judicial system is based on faith that 12 jurors will make the correct decision with the "evidence" presented.

Again, that's not faith since it depends first upon presenting the evidence and having two opposing views presented and debate in front of them. They are making a determination as to which side of the argument they found more compelling - we don't have "faith" that they will get it right. Reason leads us to the belief that a number of people, when presented with opposing views and evidences, will reach a consensus and be able to determine which of the two arguments is stronger.

But is it flawless? Has conclusive evidence been overturned after many years of faith in what evidence was presented at the time to unanimously convict someone who was innocent?

The existence of uncertainty doesn't negate the existence of knowledge. The very fact that we use evidence to overturn convictions is a demonstration that faith isn't involved in the judicial system, but an unbiased and tentative application of assessments.

Belief is based on faith.

False. Not all beliefs are based on, or derived from, faith.

Christians have faith God exists. Atheists have faith God doesn't exist.

False. Atheists don't necessarily believe (on faith or otherwise) that God doesn't exist, nor is faith strictly a necessary requirement to be a theist.

But both are limited by the knowledge their mind has received. Neither side can prove their belief. Faith determines what their mind dictates.

False. People can and do make rational, non-faith based judgements.