• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There is no evidence to suggest God couldn't be involved. As you said, there is just a gap.

There is no evidence to suggest an invisible Elf called Eric couldn't be involved, either.

If you try to make an argument for something because it cannot be disproved, it's an argument from ignorance or incredulity (which is a fallacy). Your other problem is that the people working on the hypotheses for abiogenesis can generally give plausible reasons to at least consider them as a possibilities, and they are also attempting to test their ideas.

I can't see why we should take god-magic seriously, for a number of reasons:
  1. It is unfalsifiable, so there can never be a test for it.

  2. It seems a particularly strange plan for a god to let the Earth form entirely naturally, then have to magic life into existence, only to then leave it to natural means to evolve. Almost like it messed up making the universe in the first place and then had to tinker with it to fix its mistake.

  3. There are no reasons to take the idea of the existence of a god seriously in the first place.

  4. It's basically, just giving up on a hard problem and saying "I dunno, it must be magic".
The point I was trying to make is that, no matter how many unknowns people point to, be they about abiogenesis, or the supposed "fine tuning" of the universe, or whatever, it doesn't make a case for a god. They are just unknowns. The most we can say is that there are some things we don't understand.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There is no evidence to suggest an invisible Elf called Eric couldn't be involved, either.

If you try to make an argument for something because it cannot be disproved, it's an argument from ignorance or incredulity (which is a fallacy). Your other problem is that the people working on the hypotheses for abiogenesis can generally give plausible reasons to at least consider them as a possibilities, and they are also attempting to test their ideas.

I can't see why we should take god-magic seriously, for a number of reasons:
  1. It is unfalsifiable, so there can never be a test for it.

  2. It seems a particularly strange plan for a god to let the Earth form entirely naturally, then have to magic life into existence, only to then leave it to natural means to evolve. Almost like it messed up making the universe in the first place and then had to tinker with it to fix its mistake.

  3. There are no reasons to take the idea of the existence of a god seriously in the first place.

  4. It's basically, just giving up on a hard problem and saying "I dunno, it must be magic".
The point I was trying to make is that, no matter how many unknowns people point to, be they about abiogenesis, or the supposed "fine tuning" of the universe, or whatever, it doesn't make a case for a god. They are just unknowns. The most we can say is that there are some things we don't understand.
Yet... to so many, as per the quotes, the fine-tuning position that they hold does suggest an intelligent design.

1) In some sense there is a test for it. Man continues to try to replicate it and we are intelligent and would have to design the process to make it happen
2) I never said "naturally'. There are consistent laws that promote everything that happens. We may call them "natural laws" but are these laws "naturally" formed or intelligently designed.
3) Thus there is quite a goo reason to take the idea of the existence of God.
4) I think "chance" is more magic than intelligent design.

But, like I said, scientists look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions even as you and I do.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yet... to so many, as per the quotes, the fine-tuning position that they hold does suggest an intelligent design. .

let me ask this. What about fine tuning suggests intelligent design?

It certainly suggests a *mechanism* for tuning, but why does that imply an intelligence?

What makes you think the universe was 'made' for life?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Sorry, but why would you even bother to try to test for anything or any species of creature in some other planets?

The only things you could possibly test life from space are bacteria that may arrive from meteorites, but at this stage of our technology, we cannot observe or detect life in other planets of other star systems.

Consider this, Voyager 1 & 2 set off back in the 1977, and only reached Pluto's orbit 9 years later, but as of today (41 years later) they have respectively travelled 146 AU (0.00146 ly) and 120 AU (0.00120 ly).

If Voyager 1 was hypothetically heading in the direction of the nearest star to the Sun, which is Proxima Centauri (PC), which is about 4.244 light years away, then it wouldn't reach the planets of PC in still another 175 years or more. And that's only if Voyager 1 continued at speed is travelling now (which is highly unlikely).

Do you understand what I am saying here?

I don't know if there are any habitable planet at the Proxima Centurari system, but if hypothetically did have such planet, it still would not be feasible to find life on this planet. And aside from that, Voyager 1 is not equip to detect life on this planet, nor would we know if there would be any power at all to send data back to Earth.

The only way to know for sure and to test life on the other planets, is to actually go to those planets, and space travel is still in its infancy: we currently don't have the technology.

But again, why concern yourself with life on other planets, when you really should know that we can test it?

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you are wasting my time on matter that at this stage, irrelevant.

"at this stage of our technology, we cannot observe or detect life in other planets of other star systems"

Exactly! So how could we test for a supernatural god, if it exists? We can't. Now do you see how pointless and useless it is when someone asks for scientific evidence for a supernatural god?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
"Abiogenesis are falsifiable hypotheses".

Abiogenesis is simply life arising naturally from inorganic or inanimate substances. How is it falsifiable?

I don't think you understand the concept of falsification, We Never Know.

When they say the hypothesis is "falsifiable", it mean the hypothesis has the potential of being "tested", whether it is via discovering evidences - positive or negative - or capable of being able to perform experiments - positive or negative.

Falsifiable hypothesis doesn't mean the hypothesis is true or false, it just mean it is possible to test the hypothesis.

As long you can perform the experiments as instructed in the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is falsifiable, even if the experiments (eg test results) go against the hypothesis.

Negative evidences are still evidences, but such evidences would refute the falsifiable hypothesis.

The only times the hypothesis is “unfalsifiable” is when there are no experiments or no evidences (eg zero evidences).
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Exactly! So how could we test for a supernatural god, if it exists? We can't. Now do you see how pointless and useless it is when someone asks for scientific evidence for a supernatural god?
Wrong.

Whether life exist or not in other planets, scientists are still looking for natural answers, not supernatural stories.

Supernatural isn’t just about beyond nature to explain or to comprehend.

No. Supernatural simply isn’t real. They are often use in stories; these stories are fiction, myths, allegories and which are found in religious scriptures.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yet... to so many, as per the quotes, the fine-tuning position that they hold does suggest an intelligent design.

They have made the mistake of trying to argue from unknowns.

1) In some sense there is a test for it. Man continues to try to replicate it and we are intelligent and would have to design the process to make it happen

We are using our intelligence to investigate what might have happened. That simply isn't a test of a god conjecture - not even close.

2) I never said "naturally'. There are consistent laws that promote everything that happens. We may call them "natural laws" but are these laws "naturally" formed or intelligently designed.

This doesn't even address the point I made. Call the "natural laws" whatever you want, you have suggested that abiogenesis cannot be explained by them. This leads us right back to the point of why god couldn't have got is all right from the get-go.

3) Thus there is quite a goo reason to take the idea of the existence of God.

I don't see any. Even if we concede intelligence (which I don't), even that doesn't equal "God" - let alone a specific one.

4) I think "chance" is more magic than intelligent design.

Again, missing the point. Either we can explain abiogenesis in terms of "natural" processes or not, and it's "magic". No matter how long we spend, we can never show that it must be magic - that's just giving up on doing science.

Do you really think your god is lurking in the gaps in science?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
let me ask this. What about fine tuning suggests intelligent design?

It certainly suggests a *mechanism* for tuning, but why does that imply an intelligence?

What makes you think the universe was 'made' for life?

Because it is too orderly IN MY VIEWPOINT. Things too dependent on each other, the laws too precise and life too fragile to name a few.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Because it is too orderly IN MY VIEWPOINT. Things too dependent on each other, the laws too precise and life too fragile to name a few.

Hmm...and how would you determine what level of complexity does and does not require intelligence?

And precisely what does it mean to be 'too orderly'? Are you setting a level of entropy below which an intelligence is required? if so, what is that level? And how did you compute the entropy level of the universe?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I don't think you understand the concept of falsification, We Never Know.

When they say the hypothesis is "falsifiable", it mean the hypothesis has the potential of being "tested", whether it is via discovering evidences - positive or negative - or capable of being able to perform experiments - positive or negative.

Falsifiable hypothesis doesn't mean the hypothesis is true or false, it just mean it is possible to test the hypothesis.

As long you can perform the experiments as instructed in the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is falsifiable, even if the experiments (eg test results) go against the hypothesis.

Negative evidences are still evidences, but such evidences would refute the falsifiable hypothesis.

The only times the hypothesis is “unfalsifiable” is when there are no experiments or no evidences (eg zero evidences).

Simply put falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong.

Impossibilities at least based on current science make that impossible for abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis isn't even proven yet.

IOW nonexistent possibilities doesn't make something falsifiable. IMO
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Wrong.

Whether life exist or not in other planets, scientists are still looking for natural answers, not supernatural stories.

Supernatural isn’t just about beyond nature to explain or to comprehend.

No. Supernatural simply isn’t real. They are often use in stories; these stories are fiction, myths, allegories and which are found in religious scriptures.

Life on other planets was an anology.
Let it go and focus ona god of the supernatural, if it exists, is unknown, above our current science, our current understanding, etc.

Asking for scientific evidence for a supernatural god is rather pointless and useless.

IOW whether the supernatural exists or not can't be shown in any aspect with are current knowledge. Therefore no scientific evidence will exist for the supernatural. End of story.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I have evidence for creationism right here: (it's in picture form)
baby pic adam eve.jpg


(sorry-- I posted this joke, mainly so this thread would pop up in my feed)
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Simply put falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong.
Yes. And that’s only possible if you can test the hypothesis or theory, WNK.

Falsifiability can be determine by the ability of hypothesis to perform such test, by providing instruction in the hypothesis how to perform the FUTURE tests (eg how to set up experiment in a controlled environment (thus, in lab), where you can find (observe or detect) and gather evidences, measure it and quantify it, compare and verify it; these would be the test results of your observation).

If the tests have already been performed, right or wrong, then the hypothesis is already falsifiable, because you would test results and the results would contain data to your observation (your data would be your recordings, eg measurements, quantities, comparisons, etc).

The actual Testing stage and Analysing stage of Scientific Method would be occur during observation.

The Falsifiability stage should occur before the Testing stage, they should come in the form of INSTRUCTION of (A) how to set up the experiments, or (B) how, where and when you would find the evidences.

The formulation of the hypothesis should contain explanation of preliminary observation, the theoretical and proof-based model in the form of mathematical equations, formulas and constants, that are used part of predictive model, and instruction on to test the explanation and predictions through observation via evidence finding/gathering or experiments.

If you have proposal on how to perform the tests, then that’s indication that the hypothesis is falsifiable.

A concept or model isn’t falsifiable if you have no instruction on how you would test the explanation and predictions.

When Michael Behe wrote his papers on Irreducible Complexity (IC, 1993) and later wrote his book on Darwin’s Black Box (1996), he offered no instruction on how to test IC, so he has no evidences and therefore no verifiable data. All Behe has, as his data come from computer simulations.

Anyone can make computer simulations that favor whatever model, hence, these data (from his computer simulations) are not permissible, nor qualified as scientific evidence.

This is why the scientific community at large, and even in his fellow biochemist professors he worked with at the biochemistry department, rejected Behe’s IC as nothing more than pseudoscience. Irreducible Complexity doesn’t even qualified as hypothesis, let alone as accepted and verified scientific theory.

Irreducible Complexity is example of what unfalsifiable concept or model are.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Any reasonable tests for creationism yet? With as unshakable as the belief is in the Bible someone must have come up with something by now.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
All I keep thinking though, is its not that far away as these peer-pressure science pushers want everyone to think it is. They talk about Communism that owned Nations, if Communism has a failure, people misapplied Communism. Its not far away to be without tests. People write down history because they wanted it that way. They probably perform most science without the scientific method of already want a result in mind, that's against the scientific method. Christianity was the form of society equal to Communism isn't it, from 400 to 1400 ad roughly? Feudalism is rich in Christianity. Diplomacy is rich in Christianity. Latin was only preserved with the Church so Argument is rich in Latin is rich in Christianity. Lawcourts are rich in Christianity. A King was Required to be a Christian granted Kingdom by a Religious authority. Monogomous marriage is not the human natural state. Mongomy of both genders, of any stability, is coherently Christianity. Christians decided to make the Nations of Europe we know today, out of what were migrating tribes at the end of Rome, so Christianity did that. Christian Science was the only science.

This whole thread reminds one of the birth of our country, people want to attribute George Washington with Deism. I'm not sure of that, his soldiers would not agree, but the High Church in Property belonged to an enemy, England. What does Deism, a very small simple tenet, that you're against, it seems to say, we can Look around and naturally Determine the Providence that God has created. This is from Englightenment, this is from fans of science.
 
Top