• 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!

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

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So are you saying that you do not believe in God because science has not detected God?

No. What I am saying is that there is no good reason to believe in a God because there is no way to detect one. Science is simply the way to go about detecting something.

Ethics is a human constructs only without God. There is no real good or evil without a God to inform us of such.

I disagree. There are rules of conduct that lead to better interactions and better societies. Those rule are the ethical rules. No God needed.

Aesthetics is always going to be a human construct and sometimes based on the ethics we accept.

And ethics is a human construct as well. That doesn't mean either is unimportant or unreal.

Science can only establish what is and how it works if that thing is testable by science. (But you do accept the existence of aesthetics and ethics it seems even though science cannot absolutely detect them)
Science cannot say how things came about.

Both are false statements. To be testable by science is precisely the same as simply being testable. Science can, and does , detect the behaviors of humans and what they consider to be ethical and aesthetics.

And, science has no problem figuring out things like how stars come about. Or planets. or various chemicals, etc.

The only thing you have established is that YOU do not accept the existence of God because science does not say God exists.

That is not the only reason. But the lack of detectability is a good reason to not believe.

This puts you in the descriptive orb of scientism imo because you have ascribed to science what is beyond the realm of science to determine. This would also be true not only about attributing to science the ability to say if God exists or not about also saying that science can determine how things came to be.

I would disagree. Science has the ability to detect, test, and determine the origin of anything that actually exists.

Scientism would be a word coined to describe what is called the new atheists and so would be meant to cover atheism and reasons to say that God does not exist.
I think part of the problem is that we have different definitions of scientism. IMO it is ascribing to science things that science cannot do, God's existence being one of those things.

And I disagree that it is not a scientific question. If God is detectable and testable, it can be found by science. If it cannot be detected or tested, there is no reason to believe it exists at all.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
My faith is in the God of the Bible and so I jump to that. Your faith is in science (human capacity to scientifically investigate the existence of things) and so you jump to that.
How do you know that your faith is true?

Because it is testable and repeatable. That's the same way we can know that anything is true.

No it means that you use science as your yardstick and that your determination that God does not exist means that He has no actions and so any perceived actions are unreal and so irrelevant.
But that is built on your unjustified presupposition that God does not exist. You have turned the naturalistic methodology of science into a naturalistic philosophy.

Once again, it is NOT a presupposition. It is a conclusion based on the same principles I use to determine whether or not anything else exists.

Miracles happen and science cannot find an answer but never says that God did it, it always says, we don't know. The naturalistic methodology seems to mean that science cannot say or seriously hypothesise that God did it because that would require establishing that God exists.

No miracle has ever been observed and tested. Natural science could hypothesize a deity. It just has no need to.

It's a viscious circle and many scientists seem to see it as proof that God does not exist when in reality that is just a belief that is read into science.

And I disagree. Science is tasked with observation and testing. It has no limitations on what it can hypothesize and only limited in observation and testing by our abilities to detect and test.

It can be seen in science with such things as OBEs in NDEs and a constant demand for more investigation when the reason for that is because the hypothesis is that consciousness exists outside the body, something that does not fit the current scientific paradigm.

And those experiences are investigated. We can even induce OBE artificially. We know that NDE are similar to what is experienced with ketamine, and that a ketamine analog is active during circulatory collapse.

The problem is that the results of the investigations doesn't agree with your beliefs.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Chemical reactions happen whether a spirit is there or not. Life and consciousness do not happen without a spirit. It is the spirit that gives life and consciousness, it does not give the ability for chemicals to react.

Show that there is a spirit in a bacterium. Or even, for that matter, a human.

Life *is* a collection of chemical processes. No spirits needed. That is demonstrated by biochemistry, which explains *all* of the basic properties of life with chemistry.

And please don't say that all evidence points to consciousness being only an ability of matter. That is consciousness is material based and not spirit based is something that science cannot determine. Of course all evidence points to material basis because that is all science can see.

And why is it that science cannot determine the existence of a spirit? What prevents getting actual observational evidence of such things?

I cannot see science coming up with an answer as to how information first came into molecules and how those molecules first became holders of and users of information.

ALL matter holds information. Simply being an oxygen atom as opposed to a nitrogen atom is information. The information is in the different properties of the atoms, from size, to ability to bind, to charges, etc. That *is* information.

Saying that something outside is clearly not required is therefore a belief and not science.

If the explanation can be done without anything 'outside', then nothing outside is required to explain it.

Nothing outside is required to explain the properties of living things.

It is easily measurable that as far as we know, without a God, the genetic system of evolution could not have been set up and life as we know it could not exist. BUT that is not something that science is going to say, the naturaltic methodology forbids that, so you say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"ahh God of the gaps, give us time, we'll find a possible way"
But that is no more that faith in naturalism and is not science, it is the science of the gaps.

And exactly how does postulating a deity help to explain what happened? How does it help to describe the *mechanism* of how life got started?



Yes I know that science cannot attribute anything to God even when no other reasonable answer is there. Speculate until what is hypothesized sounds reasonable enough and justify a faith in naturalism.

I could say that, but that is just giving an inch to a system that does not stop in it's naturalistic methodology and rides rough shod over other things also, such as the basis of life and the story of Genesis. And that is my faith, in the God of the Bible and what He has said. You have your faith in naturalism and what it tells us and good for you but why should you expect me to bow to the god of your faith, which I suppose is the ability of man and science to determine what exists and also what happened in the past.
Why don't you just say that science does not and cannot know if God exists and what actually did happen in the past to bring about the universe and life etc and give the glory to God?

And, then, how is it possible to know about it? What, other than observation, hypothesizing, and testing, can be used to determine the properties of spirits and deities?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
My faith is in the God of the Bible and so I jump to that. Your faith is in science (human capacity to scientifically investigate the existence of things) and so you jump to that.
How do you know that your faith is true?
Faith has no place in science. It's useless. Science is evidence-based.

Why do religionists always try to drag science down to the level of their religion? It's quite telling.

Why do you have faith in the Bible?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
My faith is in the God of the Bible and so I jump to that. Your faith is in science (human capacity to scientifically investigate the existence of things) and so you jump to that.
How do you know that your faith is true?

Science works.

Also, not "faith" required.
Science has a very empirical and verifiable track record of yielding reliable results.

This is why people who try to build a machine use science to do so instead of asking the gods or spirits or whatever on how to do it.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That is according to your faith but is not necessarily so. The things that your libel to read in the scientific journals ain't necessarily so.


Not a coherent response, and lacks a basic knowledge of the English language to understand the difference between what is faith, and the objective evidence of the nature of our physical existence based on objective evidence.

You also have failed to respond to the basic observable facts that the nature of our physical existence, life, abiogenesis and evolution are not based on chance, randomness or luck. They ares based on observable objective Natural Laws and natural processes determined through science.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
You also have failed to respond to the basic observable facts that the nature of our physical existence, life, abiogenesis and evolution are not based on chance, randomness or luck. They ares based on observable objective Natural Laws and natural processes determined through science.


Science does not know what life is or if abiogenesis happened or if evolution happened the ways or to the extent that science presumes it did.
Science does not know that in the exact same conditions on a twin planet in the universe and given the same length of time, that life have begun.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Science does not know what life is or if abiogenesis happened or if evolution happened the ways or to the extent that science presumes it did.
Science does not know that in the exact same conditions on a twin planet in the universe and given the same length of time, that life have begun.

As usual your knowledge is over the top appalling, and you are stuck in an ancient mythology thousands of years old. You are no even aware of what science knows and does not know.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
"Evolutionists" cannot explain except by surmisal about the so-called "Unknown" Common Ancestor. They figure there must be one so scientists made it up. They don't know. But that's what they figure. Meantime, bonobos, gorillas etc. are not moving, morphing, evolving to different forms. So far bats remain bats, butterflies remain butterflies

There are over 1400 species of bats - Bat - Wikipedia - and about 18,500 species of butterflies - Butterfly - Wikipedia . Do you accept that all the living species of bats and butterflies are descended from common ancestors (mammalian ancestors for bats and lepidopteran ancestors for butterflies)? How do you know that bonobos and gorillas are not evolving to different forms of apes?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There are over 1400 species of bats - Bat - Wikipedia - and about 18,500 species of butterflies - Butterfly - Wikipedia . Do you accept that all the living species of bats and butterflies are descended from common ancestors (mammalian ancestors for bats and lepidopteran ancestors for butterflies)? How do you know that bonobos and gorillas are not evolving to different forms of apes?
I don't know that much about bats, in other words, how many different types there are and if they can interbreed, but I figure bats have a common ancestor bat couple maybe.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know that much about bats, in other words, how many different types there are and if they can interbreed, but I figure bats have a common ancestor bat couple maybe.

So you allow for a fairly large amount of evolution. Now, how closely are humans related to, say, bonobos as compared to how closely different bats are related?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So you allow for a fairly large amount of evolution. Now, how closely are humans related to, say, bonobos as compared to how closely different bats are related?
I understand the question. Let's stick to bats for a while. Do you know if the different types interbreed?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I understand the question. Let's stick to bats for a while. Do you know if the different types interbreed?

Bats are hardly a significant issue in the discussion of evolution. Yes like all similar species in many groups of species, and subspecies of different related animals interbreed. The process is called hyberdization, which is part of the evolution process..

Ineresting reference: List of genetic hybrids - Wikipedia.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Bats are hardly a significant issue in the discussion of evolution. Yes like all similar species in many groups of species, and subspecies of different related animals interbreed. The process is called hyberdization, which is part of the evolution process..

Ineresting reference: List of genetic hybrids - Wikipedia.
And that reminded me of a problem. When it comes to hybridization. There are very few genetically pure American Bison left. There is a large herd in Yellowstone, another in South Dakota, and a few small ones scattered across the country. Genetic diversity is a problem. There are quite a few others, but they all tend to have some cow DNA.

https://www.idtdna.com/pages/commun...mperiled-ruler-of-america-s-iconic-landscapes
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Bats are hardly a significant issue in the discussion of evolution. Yes like all similar species in many groups of species, and subspecies of different related animals interbreed. The process is called hyberdization, which is part of the evolution process..

Ineresting reference: List of genetic hybrids - Wikipedia.
If you would be so kind, can you please just talk about bats as far as interbreeding goes? Do bat species interbreed insofar as you know? The link you provided on wikipedia is lengthy, and since you know so much about these things, perhaps you can kindly say yes, bats do interbreed producing a different group, perhaps mentioning what these are insofar as producing different groups, or no, they do not. Thank you.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If you would be so kind, can you please just talk about bats as far as interbreeding goes? Do bat species interbreed insofar as you know? The link you provided on wikipedia is lengthy, and since you know so much about these things, perhaps you can kindly say yes, bats do interbreed producing a different group, perhaps mentioning what these are insofar as producing different groups, or no, they do not. Thank you.

Already answered the question and the answer is yes as described. It is not what I know it is simply well documented science..
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And that reminded me of a problem. When it comes to hybridization. There are very few genetically pure American Bison left. There is a large herd in Yellowstone, another in South Dakota, and a few small ones scattered across the country. Genetic diversity is a problem. There are quite a few others, but they all tend to have some cow DNA.

https://www.idtdna.com/pages/commun...mperiled-ruler-of-america-s-iconic-landscapes

Yes this is an example of human caused lack of genetic diversity in an animal species. The lack of genetic diversity in this case sets the species up for extinction,

The survival of populations of related species, subspecies and varieties is dependent on genetic diversity and hybridization to evolve in response to 'survival pf the fittest.'
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Already answered the question and the answer is yes as described. It is not what I know it is simply well documented science..
Can you at least show a reference to particular distinct but not-quite-the-same bats that have interbred?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Already answered the question and the answer is yes as described. It is not what I know it is simply well documented science..
What's well documented? That various forms interbreed, or that bats interbreed and the groups are identified? Re: bats -- where is it "well-documented" that the various groups interbreed or have interbred and thus documented? Thank you.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Show that there is a spirit in a bacterium. Or even, for that matter, a human.

Life *is* a collection of chemical processes. No spirits needed. That is demonstrated by biochemistry, which explains *all* of the basic properties of life with chemistry.



And why is it that science cannot determine the existence of a spirit? What prevents getting actual observational evidence of such things?



ALL matter holds information. Simply being an oxygen atom as opposed to a nitrogen atom is information. The information is in the different properties of the atoms, from size, to ability to bind, to charges, etc. That *is* information.



If the explanation can be done without anything 'outside', then nothing outside is required to explain it.

Nothing outside is required to explain the properties of living things.



And exactly how does postulating a deity help to explain what happened? How does it help to describe the *mechanism* of how life got started?



Yes I know that science cannot attribute anything to God even when no other reasonable answer is there. Speculate until what is hypothesized sounds reasonable enough and justify a faith in naturalism.



And, then, how is it possible to know about it? What, other than observation, hypothesizing, and testing, can be used to determine the properties of spirits and deities?
You really do not know how life began.
 
Top