Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[TagliatelliMonster]

You, as many like you do, completely misinterpret. Your superciliousness is not without recognition.

He isn't misinterpreting anything.

That is a very accurate nutshell representation of you.

You have no expertise at all in the fields, as you yourself acknowledge (and it shows very much also in the things you claim on the topic...). Worse even, every time someone points out mistakes you are making, you simply ignore them and double down in what-I-can-only-call willful ignorance.

And all the while you insist on arguing against mainstream biology, genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, etc.

When you insist that a certain theory of science is false, then you are literally saying that all the scientists that support the theory ARE WRONG.

So no, @Jose Fly absolutely didn't misrepresent you.
What he "accused" you off is exactly what you do.
You acknowledge to not know much about the science, yet insist that the scientists that actually work in the relevant fields are wrong anyway.


It's indeed quite fascinating.
Both that attitude as well as your denial of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

do a search on "percentage of DNA of gorillas to humans", you'll find plenty of data. Have a good one!

Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome - Scientific American

chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.


Did you google it before making the claim?
FYI: oerang oetangs trail even further at 97%

 

[Brian2]

It has some similarities to a language. That does not make it a language. It is not evidence for a God.

Since this is a scientific discussion to make this easier and more accurate you should be relying on scientific evidence. There is none of that for your beliefs. You have to put your fears behind you to get scientific evidence. This is something that believers cannot seem to do. If you want to claim to have scientific evidence for God you have to form your claims as a testable hypothesis. So what test could possibly refute your version of God? If you cannot think of one, and it needs to be based upon predictions that your hypothesis make about God you do not have any evidence. Scientist do this quite often.

There is no need to go down the path of agreeing that God needs to pass tests by science before I can believe His existence to be true. That path is for those who want to hide in science when they know that God is not a scientific hypothesis and that evidence for God is not evidence that science can test.

 

[Brian2]

Oxymoron. If a thing is unfalsifiable and undetectable, then by definition it can't have evidence.

You must be talking about evidence to be tested by science.
I'm not talking about evidence that is testable by science. You know that already surely. So you are misrepresenting God by your "science only" approach.

I never said any such thing either.
You can't work out that undetectable magical entities "do not exist."
In fact, I'ld dare say that you can't work out that anything at all "does not exist", except when it is internally contradicting. Like a "married bachelor".

But how do you plan on "proving" that centaurs don't exist, for example?
You can't do it.

The only thing you CAN do, is support or prove that they DO exist.
But when there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever to suggest they exist, why would you assume they do?

Sure, the fact that there is "magic" associated / interwoven with gods and centaurs and goblins... that makes the probability of those things existing very very unlikely. Due to such claimed properties, their existence become very implausible. To the point that we will just assume that they don't exist until given a reason to assume otherwise.

Great, science can't say whether centaurs exist and so should just presume they don't exist until given a reason to presume otherwise.
There are pitfalls to doing that however. Footprints that look like horse footprints might be found which in fact are centaur footprints, but science will never say that and so makes scientific errors because of the presumption.

 

[Brian2]

No, it's not.
It's a giant molecule engaged in a giant chemical chain reaction.

The "coding" and the "language" part is metaphorical.
At bottom, it's just complex carbon based chemistry.

It is complex carbon based chemistry that carries data which other molecules can access and use.

That's just your religious belief.

In reality, it's a blind chain reaction which evolved over time.

That's just your lack of religious belief.
It is blind but how did it become a data storage and using system?
It evolved, without intelligent input, is just one of the beliefs that comes from lack of belief in a God.

 

[Brian2]

Then that God, as Neil deGrass Tyson once said: "..is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance"

Aka, god of the gaps.

When all that science can do is make educated guesses that cannot be tested, science becomes an ever growing pocket of ignorance in those areas and turns out non science to fill the gaps. Science of the gaps, which is not science at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no need to go down the path of agreeing that God needs to pass tests by science before I can believe His existence to be true. That path is for those who want to hide in science when they know that God is not a scientific hypothesis and that evidence for God is not evidence that science can test.

Once again. no one is saying that God much pass tests. The claims about God must pass tests. You are making a terrible error, you are conflating the Bible with God. That is actually breaeking one of the first 2 Commandments. You are making a false idol of the Bible..

Let's not "test God" Let's test your beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

These gods are undetectable. Which is to say, they have no measurable manifestation in reality.
Things without measurable manifestation, by definition play no role in physical observable processes.

Try to inject an undetectable god without manifestation in E = mc² for example. Let's call it variable G.
We get: E = mc² + G
Work it and you'll get G = 0.

Undetectable gods without manifestation, don't play a role in anything by definition.

You can't have it both ways.

Without God there would be no E=mc2
Undetectable means that if science saw something that God did or that was supernatural, science would not know what to say the cause was but probably would have multiple educated guesses at what it could have been and they would all be naturalistic, of course.

Because there is nothing there to study.
Again, the non-existent and the undetectable look exactly alike.

And if you only accept evidence that science can accept and test and so eliminate any other evidence for a God from the equation and stop science from giving a supernatural answer until the supernatural is first proven to exist, then you end up fooling yourself that what is undetectable is actually non existent.

If there is nothing to study, then there is nothing to study.
This is not the fault of science. Nore is it a shortcoming of science.
Science isn't "anti god" as you seem to be saying.

It's just that if you wish to study a thing, then there should be stuff to study.
What are you going to study if the stuff to be studied is defined as "undetectable"?
How are you going to even distinguish it from things that don't exist?

Science can't study it, because there is nothing there to be studied.

I agree. It's not the fault of science that atheists and sceptics misrepresent science to say that the undetectable is actually non existent.
It's not the fault of science that atheists and sceptics see scientific method as the only way and evidence that science can study as the only acceptable evidence.
It's not the fault of science that it's parameters mean that it can keep coming up what sounds like plausible naturalistic explanations when in fact the real explanations are supernatural.
Poor science is the innocent.

It's funny because almost every time that people try to solve a scientific problem at the frontiers of scientific knowledge using "common sense", they almost always turn out to be wrong.

Common sense is not a pathway to truth when the subject matter is questions about the unknown.
Common sense is reasoning based on what you already know.

100 years ago "common sense" told us that things can't be in 2 places at ones. Then we discovered subatomic particles who can do exactly that.

200 years ago "common sense" told us that the flow of time is a constant and the same everywhere. Then we discovered that it's relative to the observe and thrown seriously out of whack at great speeds or in proximity of great gravity.

Etc.

See, this is why actual independently verifiable evidence is important. To avoid making such mistakes.

In science independent verifiable evidence is important. Great. But that doesn't stop things being accepted without verifiable evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Science cannot go beyond verifiably objective evidence to falsify theories and hypotheses. Science is strictly 'physical' by its nature.

So science can never say that life is just chemistry and physics until it creates life from mixing chemicals in the right environment.
Science can never claim that Moses never existed and the Exodus never happened or that YHWH did not appear to Moses in a burning bush.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So science can never say that life is just chemistry and physics until it creates life from mixing chemicals in the right environment.
Science can never claim that Moses never existed and the Exodus never happened or that YHWH did not appear to Moses in a burning bush.

That is not the way that it works. There is plenty of evidence that life is just chemical. AS usual the person with no evidence is desperate to shift the burden of proof. You do not even get to claim a possibility until you find some evidence for your beliefs. Claims of the Bible do not count as evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Well, reason to blame. Reason tells me that life and universe are Physics and Chemistry, and nothing else.

How does reason tell you that life is just physics and chemistry?
Surely life is more than chemistry and physics.

 

[Brian2]

You don't seem to get it.

In order for god(s), deities, whatever to be included in scientific explanations for how things work, there needs to be EVIDENCE for said gods, deities, etc. You don't just get to insert them into explanations that work just fine without them.

I know that. Science is not to blame that sceptics and atheists misrepresent it, as if it can tell us things about everything. But it cannot tell us things about what it cannot study. It cannot study God because there is not the sort of evidence that it can use. That is not to say that there is no evidence, just not scientific evidence.

 

[Brian2]

It's like a language.
It's not a language.
It's just an analogy.


You know DNA doesn't have little letters on it, right? That's just how human beings have decided to identify each of it's nucleotide bases.
DNA is not an invented language. I know another poster already went in-depth with you on this, so at this point I'm wondering why you're still continuing with this line of argumentation.

I was not convinced.

 

[Brian2]

You literally just said, "God is unfalsifiable and undetectable but has evidence and so is distinguishable from non-existent things."

Please explain how an unfalsifiable and undetectable thing can be demonstrated to exist and is distinguishable from non-existent things.

This isn't a limitation of science - which is just a method of observation, testing and analysis. This is a limitation of your beliefs which as you've pointed out are unfalsifiable and undetectable. Why and how do you believe a thing that has no observable or detectable evidence for its existence?

A non existent thing has no evidence but God does have evidence even though the evidence is not scientific evidence.
The evidence is seen with our senses yes and by reason also but that it is evidence of God comes from a leap of faith beyond the reasoning. Reasoning only goes so far and ends at a point where we have to say that we do not know. The leap of faith does not deny our intelligence it just leaps to a belief in God.

 

[Brian2]

It works for every single thing we actually know about the world we live in.

But God is not the world we live in and things that God has said that He did are seen as naturalistic by science. So science comes up with educated guesses about how they might have happened in a natural way. These guesses are not tested however, so they are not science.

How do you know God said anything?
How do you know God has done anything?
This isn't about "science" not knowing a thing. This is about you asserting facts of reality that are not in evidence and are apparently not demonstrable in any way.

"If you can't show it, you don't know it."
-AronRa

I say that God gave life and that science tells us that life comes from life and not from dead matter.
So what do I get as an answer? That God's life must have come from a previous life then or God is the exception. So yes, God is the exception because God is not part of this material universe, God is the uncreated, the original source, the first cause of all of this.
The highlighted part above is what science tells us and beyond that is hypothesis. I say that God is the giver of life and science defines life as chemistry and physics against what science tells us. Science says life came from dead material. Science has gone against science to give a naturalistic answer to fill a gap that it sees needs to be filled because it cannot fill it with God.
So educated guess is that life came from dead matter and religious belief is that God gave life. Which is true?
Both are beliefs and one is true imo.
I can show that God has spoken by what God has told us in the Bible,,,,,,,,,,, fulfilled prophecy for example.
Can you show that life came from dead matter? or is it just a belief?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does reason tell you that life is just physics and chemistry?
Surely life is more than chemistry and physics.

This is why theists should try to learn what is and is not evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How does reason tell you that life is just physics and chemistry?
Surely life is more than chemistry and physics.

You should have learnt this in you school years, but it seems you have not. Therefore, I suggest that you go through the information in Wikipedia at:
Universe - Wikipedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

The pages contain important links where you can find more information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know that. Science is not to blame that sceptics and atheists misrepresent it, as if it can tell us things about everything. But it cannot tell us things about what it cannot study. It cannot study God because there is not the sort of evidence that it can use. That is not to say that there is no evidence, just not scientific evidence.

Okay, let's stop tap dancing around here and get to it - What's your evidence for God(s)?
If it's not evidence that we can observe, that we can measure in some way, or analyze, or test, or replicate, or anything, then what evidence is it that you claim to have? I mean, these are the tools we use to demonstrate that things actually exist, and you're telling me, "oh no that doesn't work when it comes to this God that I propose the existence of." Well, why not? And on what basis can you claim something exists without any actual way of demonstrating it??

How, and with what are you using to detect the presence of this God you speak of, and how can you demonstrate any of it to anyone else?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was not convinced.

You were not convinced that DNA isn't a language?

It isn't. Only metaphorically-speaking is it considered a language.

English is a language. French is a language. You know, things invented by humans to communicate with each other.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A non existent thing has no evidence but God does have evidence even though the evidence is not scientific evidence.

Which turns out the be the same "evidence" of a non-existent thing. Funny, that.

The evidence is seen with our senses yes and by reason also but that it is evidence of God comes from a leap of faith beyond the reasoning. Reasoning only goes so far and ends at a point where we have to say that we do not know. The leap of faith does not deny our intelligence it just leaps to a belief in God.

Yes, there is a point where we have to say that we do not know a thing, pending further investigation. We don't know everything. But, you're not doing that. You're claiming that once we get to the point where we have to say we don't know, then we can just insert your personal God into the equation and claim we now have the answer. As if that offers any time of explanatory power at all, when it doesn't. It's just an appeal to an even bigger mystery and provides no actual answers.

If this God is supposedly undetectable, then we wouldn't be able to detect it with our senses, or anything else for that matter. Your claim doesn't make sense.

And this is why people like me point out that faith is the excuse people give for believing in something when they don't have evidence, otherwise, they'd just give the evidence instead of invoking faith (which you've just done here). On that note, faith is not a pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith. So, faith is useless to me here. Let's see some evidence.