Truth: either God exists or He don't.

Polymath257 · Feb 8, 2021

ElishaElijah said:
I didn’t say that it did come from nothing, God is eternal with no beginning or end, He has life in Himself and is the Creator.
I’m trying to understand the logic of the intellectual person who is using scientific approach who seems to reject that their is a God. Or at least clear up some things

Well, then, neither do scientists say it 'comes from nothing'.

One thing to realize is that modern science identifies the universe as *all* of space *and time*. So time and space are part of the universe. Also, all causality happens in time, so all causality happens *inside* of the universe.

And that means the universe itself is uncaused.

Part of the scientific approach is to admit that we don't know everything. If there is no data about a situation, then nothing should be said about that situation. And any data we have should be taken as simply the best we have so far and NOT the final word.

In other words, the scientific method is one of humility: that we do not know it all and that we need evidence to even attempt to understand. It is accepting that even our most cherished ideas can be wrong and should be discarded or changed in the face of evidence showing them to be wrong.

So, we start with what we know and can show immediately: that usually involves things that can be done in a lab or seen in a telescope. We use this to build more general descriptions (theories) of how things work. This allows us to build new tools and then to probe more complex or previously hidden phenomena.

The scientific method itself is very general: test all ideas by actual observation, discard or change those that don't fit, and try to break even your most cherished beliefs to find out their limitations.

The conclusions of this process have built up over the last four centuries: first we learned that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Then we learned some of the general principles of motion. We learned about chemistry, electromagnetism, the nature of the atom, and how the nucleus of atoms works. We have learned that things at the subatomic level work in ways that are not contemplated in classical philosophy. And we have learned a great deal about the dynamics of space and time.

All in all, we have learned a tremendous amount in the last 400 years. Among these things, and again counter to all expectations originally, the Earth is far older than expected, biological species change over time, our galaxy is not the only one, our sun is a star, and life is far more diverse than anyone ever imagined.

But these are the conclusions made, based on observations, and the scientific method, not the scientific method itself. The method is the best way we have of learning about the universe around us. It takes into account our fallibility and requires testing of all of our ideas. AND it requires that we attempt to show our ideas are wrong, again by actual observation. Any idea that is not at risk of being shown wrong by some (potential) observation is simply discarded as worthless. Such ideas add no actual knowledge.

ElishaElijah · Feb 8, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
I will only give a very short synopsis. Complex chemicals will self form. Given the right environment and time a self replicating molecule formed. Given that life was not that far away.

Interesting concept, Ok have a good day, done with this thread now

Polymath257 · Feb 8, 2021

ElishaElijah said:
Really not looking for in depth study, but 4 billion years ago, where is the scientist that can prove this by observation. Who was there when life happens? It’s easy to use experiments to date things that are already here but what about the origin of life, that’s a lot different.

It is not necessary that someone was there when it happened. Events in the past leave traces today. And we can use those traces to figure out what happened in the past.

Those same methods that ate things today can be used to date things in the past. Furthermore, we know when and how those methods can give unreliable results and guard against such. We have a good understanding of the processes involved and what can and what cannot affect them.

The origin of life is still one of the puzzles we don't have a full answer to. That is partly because the evidence from that time is meager. But there are still traces we can piece together, based on our knowledge of physics and chemistry. We know, for example, that there were living things on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. We also know that the Earth itself formed about 4.5 billion years ago. It took time for the Earth to cool enough for liquid water to form and that clearly needed to happen before life could get going.

We also know a fair amount (but not as much as we would like) about the chemical environment when life arose. In particular, oxygen was not a major component of the atmosphere at the time (if it were, the rocks from that tie would have been oxidized--they weren't). So *modern* life, which mostly requires oxygen to survive, would not have been possible then. But there are types of bacteria even today that are poisoned by oxygen. Those bacteria are the model for what life looked like early on (and we find actual fossils of such).

We can also approach the matter from the opposite direction. We can look at life *today* and see what remnants of older processes and structures are encoded in its genetics. And, while we find a great deal of diversity, we also find many similarities. Among the most obvious is the use of DNA, RNA, and proteins in the central processes of life. Those are the fundamental chemicals of life and understanding how they originally formed is part of learning how life originated.

Once again, there is much we do not know. We think we know some of the outlines, but many of the details are still hidden from us. We simply don't have the needed data. But people are working to find that data and answer these questions.

Admitting we don't know isn't the same as saying the answers are unknowable.

Audie · Feb 8, 2021

ElishaElijah said:
Wo

Lol, maybe, have a good day

"Maybe"? You just got through giving another demo!

Audie · Feb 8, 2021

Polymath257 said:
It is not necessary that someone was there when it happened. Events in the past leave traces today. And we can use those traces to figure out what happened in the past.

Those same methods that ate things today can be used to date things in the past. Furthermore, we know when and how those methods can give unreliable results and guard against such. We have a good understanding of the processes involved and what can and what cannot affect them.

The origin of life is still one of the puzzles we don't have a full answer to. That is partly because the evidence from that time is meager. But there are still traces we can piece together, based on our knowledge of physics and chemistry. We know, for example, that there were living things on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. We also know that the Earth itself formed about 4.5 billion years ago. It took time for the Earth to cool enough for liquid water to form and that clearly needed to happen before life could get going.

We also know a fair amount (but not as much as we would like) about the chemical environment when life arose. In particular, oxygen was not a major component of the atmosphere at the time (if it were, the rocks from that tie would have been oxidized--they weren't). So *modern* life, which mostly requires oxygen to survive, would not have been possible then. But there are types of bacteria even today that are poisoned by oxygen. Those bacteria are the model for what life looked like early on (and we find actual fossils of such).

We can also approach the matter from the opposite direction. We can look at life *today* and see what remnants of older processes and structures are encoded in its genetics. And, while we find a great deal of diversity, we also find many similarities. Among the most obvious is the use of DNA, RNA, and proteins in the central processes of life. Those are the fundamental chemicals of life and understanding how they originally formed is part of learning how life originated.

Once again, there is much we do not know. We think we know some of the outlines, but many of the details are still hidden from us. We simply don't have the needed data. But people are working to find that data and answer these questions.

Admitting we don't know isn't the same as saying the answers are unknowable.

The "you weren't there" trick is popular with
the uneducated, who think its a killer gotcha.

Should work great in court.

Audie · Feb 8, 2021

Polymath257 said:
Well, then, neither do scientists say it 'comes from nothing'.

One thing to realize is that modern science identifies the universe as *all* of space *and time*. So time and space are part of the universe. Also, all causality happens in time, so all causality happens *inside* of the universe.

And that means the universe itself is uncaused.

Part of the scientific approach is to admit that we don't know everything. If there is no data about a situation, then nothing should be said about that situation. And any data we have should be taken as simply the best we have so far and NOT the final word.

In other words, the scientific method is one of humility: that we do not know it all and that we need evidence to even attempt to understand. It is accepting that even our most cherished ideas can be wrong and should be discarded or changed in the face of evidence showing them to be wrong.

So, we start with what we know and can show immediately: that usually involves things that can be done in a lab or seen in a telescope. We use this to build more general descriptions (theories) of how things work. This allows us to build new tools and then to probe more complex or previously hidden phenomena.

The scientific method itself is very general: test all ideas by actual observation, discard or change those that don't fit, and try to break even your most cherished beliefs to find out their limitations.

The conclusions of this process have built up over the last four centuries: first we learned that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Then we learned some of the general principles of motion. We learned about chemistry, electromagnetism, the nature of the atom, and how the nucleus of atoms works. We have learned that things at the subatomic level work in ways that are not contemplated in classical philosophy. And we have learned a great deal about the dynamics of space and time.

All in all, we have learned a tremendous amount in the last 400 years. Among these things, and again counter to all expectations originally, the Earth is far older than expected, biological species change over time, our galaxy is not the only one, our sun is a star, and life is far more diverse than anyone ever imagined.

But these are the conclusions made, based on observations, and the scientific method, not the scientific method itself. The method is the best way we have of learning about the universe around us. It takes into account our fallibility and requires testing of all of our ideas. AND it requires that we attempt to show our ideas are wrong, again by actual observation. Any idea that is not at risk of being shown wrong by some (potential) observation is simply discarded as worthless. Such ideas add no actual knowledge.

All such is no match for infallibility,
or the ease with which one achieves
that status.

Subduction Zone · Feb 8, 2021

ElishaElijah said:
Interesting concept, Ok have a good day, done with this thread now

That is fine. It is too bad that you would rather cling to an irrational belief than try to find out where we came from. But you are probably just another Christian that believes that God lied.

Subduction Zone · Feb 8, 2021

Audie said:
Nobody knows when or where he was born or died.

Wait a second now. Let's not jump to conclusions. Luke has Mary betrothed to Joseph and it seems knocked up in the time of Herod. Herod did in roughly 4 BCE. In fact in Luke 1 40 when John the Baptist gets a little feisty in his mother's womb many attribute that to the presence of Jesus. Then in Luke 2 we hear of the census that causes Joseph and a pregnant Mary and to go to Bethlehem. We know that the first census of Judea was the same one named in the Bible. The Census of Quirinius. That was my in 6 CE. So it appears after your standard ten year pregnancy that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Subduction Zone · Feb 8, 2021

ElishaElijah said:
Wo

Lol, maybe, have a good day

There does not appear to be any maybe about it.

37818 · Feb 8, 2021

Audie said:
Nobody knows when or where he was born or died.

Either the written history (New Testament) is believed or not. The Christian New Testament is the only valid history and teachings for the Christian faith. I argued that there are actual dates for the claimed history of the crucifixion. It is called the Passover. Mark 14:12.

Most all of what any of us think we know is based on the witness of others. 79 moons of Jupiter. Personally I have only seen 4 of the moons.

It is my understanding the Baha'i faith is based on other non-Christian beliefs starting in the 1800's. The New Testament documents are dated to the 1st century.

Audie · Feb 8, 2021

37818 said:
Either the written history (New Testament) is believed or not. The Christian New Testament is the only valid history and teachings for the Christian faith. I argued that there are actual dates for the claimed history of the crucifixion. It is called the Passover. Mark 14:12.

Most all of what any of us think we know is based on the witness of others. 79 moons of Jupiter. Personally I have only seen 4 of the moons.

It is my understanding the Baha'i faith is based on other non-Christian beliefs starting in the 1800's. The New Testament documents are dated to the 1st century.

If someone doesnt recognize the nativity story
is fantasy, and thinks the Passover thing is not
only reliable but identifies the year and place,
well, that's faith.

LDS people have faith that there really-really
were gold books found by Joseph Smith,
as directed by angels. Faith!

Plus, LDS has a dozen witnesses who saw
the books, signed their names to their testimony.

No faith needed for Jupiter moons.
Look for yourself.

Faith in magic is a way different thing than
faith that China is really there even if you
cant see it at the moment.

37818 · Feb 8, 2021

Audie said:
If someone doesnt recognize the nativity story
is fantasy, and thinks the Passover thing is not
only reliable but identifies the year and place,
well, that's faith.

LDS people have faith that there really-really
were gold books found by Joseph Smith,
as directed by angels. Faith!

Plus, LDS has a dozen witnesses who saw
the books, signed their names to their testimony.

No faith needed for Jupiter moons.
Look for yourself.

Faith in magic is a way different thing than
faith that China is really there even if you
cant see it at the moment.

Your idea of faith is not understanding faith.
That Jupiter has 79 known moons is a matter of faith in the witness of others.

You, and nobody else, do not know anything without faith.

Name one thing you know to be true and do not believe, that is, that you do not have faith that it is true. You cannot.

Audie · Feb 8, 2021

37818 said:
Your idea of faith not understaning faith.
That Jupiter has 79 known moons is a matter of faith in the witness of others.

You, and nobody else, do not know anything without faith.

Name one thing you know to be true and do not believe, that is, that you do not have faith that it is true. You cannot.

Good freaking grief.
Amuse yourself as you like with this stupid
equivocation game, but play it with someone else.

37818 · Feb 8, 2021

Audie said:
Good freaking grief.
Amuse yourself as you like with this stupid
equivocation game, but play it with someone else.

Then please do not bother replying. I will give you the same space. (Unless you change your mind.)

Polymath257 · Feb 8, 2021

37818 said:
Your idea of faith is not understanding faith.
That Jupiter has 79 known moons is a matter of faith in the witness of others.

You, and nobody else, do not know anything without faith.

Name one thing you know to be true and do not believe, that is, that you do not have faith that it is true. You cannot.

You are confusing religious faith with confidence in the reliability of others. Those are two *very* different things.

But, for example, I know from personal observation that there are at least 4 moons of Jupiter. I have seen them through a telescope. I have followed their movements and have verified that the *predicted* positions and the actual positions agree.

I have personally seen the Orion nebula through a telescope and can verify that what I saw agrees with the pictures published (although the professional pictures are much more detailed than what I was able to see).

Next, I know from personally meeting a variety of scientists that they are usually most interested in learning how things work and NOT in the monetary rewards (which are small compared to what they could get doing other things). I know from discussions with them that they are *always* second and third guessing themselves and their conclusions. They are continually trying to find alternative explanations of the observations and testing between these alternatives.

So, I have *confidence* in the overall scientific process. It isn't perfect, nor are the scientists, but it does fix errors over time.

But this confidence is MUCH different than religious faith. Instead of the humility that I see from the scientists, the doubts and questions, I see religious people convinced of their own infallibility. They have the huge arrogance to think that they (and only those who agree with them) know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They literally believe that a creator of the universe dictated or inspired the books they read. Instead of questioning their views and testing them, they have the idea of 'faith', which is essentially NOT testing the ideas or questioning them.

The religious base their ideas that their particular reading of their religious book is the *right* one and that no other view can ever have anything valid to say. To me, that is not the path of wisdom, but of arrogant denial of the possibility you can be wrong.

Even the 'faith' that there is a God at all goes *way* beyond the evidence and *way* beyond any sort of testability. As far as I can see, it is a nice story that explains away many issues, but actually fails to explain anything. Mostly, it simply gives pat answers to deep questions and simply denies that any more investigation is required.

So, one one side we have *earned confidence* in a process devoted to considering evidence and testing its ideas and on the other side we have *faith* which says evidence is irrelevant and that testing the ideas is an evil.

Sorry, but in my view, religious faith is an evil.

PureX · Feb 8, 2021

Audie said:
Good freaking grief.
Amuse yourself as you like with this stupid
equivocation game, but play it with someone else.

Well, he/she does have a point, though. Knowledge is not certainty, and yet most people treat it as certain, anyway, based on their faith in the validity of the sources. In fact, not 'most people', but all of us do this. We are all living by faith in that sense. I see no shame in admitting that, do you?

PureX · Feb 8, 2021

37818 said:
Most all of what any of us think we know is based on the witness of others. 79 moons of Jupiter. Personally I have only seen 4 of the moons..

It is not true that we are all 'relying on the witness of others'. Mostly we are all relying on the logical validity of the many truth claims we encounter. And we all have somewhat different criteria for establishing the validity of those claims.

37818 · Feb 8, 2021

Polymath257 said:
You are confusing religious faith with confidence in the reliability of others. Those are two *very* different things.

But, for example, I know from personal observation that there are at least 4 moons of Jupiter. I have seen them through a telescope. I have followed their movements and have verified that the *predicted* positions and the actual positions agree.

I have personally seen the Orion nebula through a telescope and can verify that what I saw agrees with the pictures published (although the professional pictures are much more detailed than what I was able to see).

Next, I know from personally meeting a variety of scientists that they are usually most interested in learning how things work and NOT in the monetary rewards (which are small compared to what they could get doing other things). I know from discussions with them that they are *always* second and third guessing themselves and their conclusions. They are continually trying to find alternative explanations of the observations and testing between these alternatives.

So, I have *confidence* in the overall scientific process. It isn't perfect, nor are the scientists, but it does fix errors over time.

But this confidence is MUCH different than religious faith. Instead of the humility that I see from the scientists, the doubts and questions, I see religious people convinced of their own infallibility. They have the huge arrogance to think that they (and only those who agree with them) know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They literally believe that a creator of the universe dictated or inspired the books they read. Instead of questioning their views and testing them, they have the idea of 'faith', which is essentially NOT testing the ideas or questioning them.

The religious base their ideas that their particular reading of their religious book is the *right* one and that no other view can ever have anything valid to say. To me, that is not the path of wisdom, but of arrogant denial of the possibility you can be wrong.

Even the 'faith' that there is a God at all goes *way* beyond the evidence and *way* beyond any sort of testability. As far as I can see, it is a nice story that explains away many issues, but actually fails to explain anything. Mostly, it simply gives pat answers to deep questions and simply denies that any more investigation is required.

So, one one side we have *earned confidence* in a process devoted to considering evidence and testing its ideas and on the other side we have *faith* which says evidence is irrelevant and that testing the ideas is an evil.

Sorry, but in my view, religious faith is an evil.

Well, as a New Testament Christian, aka, as Baptist, there is the faith which eveyone has, and there is the faith of the Christian faith. Faith is faith, it is an issue of what is being believed. In the Christian New Testament the word for faith is the same word whether it is anything believed or the Christian faith. It is the same word.

Nobody knows anything without believing that thing to be true. Aka faith. It is irrational to think otherwise.

Truth is abslolute.
How one knows comes before what one knows.
Generalizations are not always true.

37818 · Feb 8, 2021

PureX said:
It is not true that we are all 'relying on the witness of others'. Mostly we are all relying on the logical validity of the many truth claims we encounter. And we all have somewhat different criteria for establishing the validity of those claims.

Where did our language come from? Meaning of words. Others.

PureX · Feb 8, 2021

37818 said:
Where did our language come from? Meaning of words. Others.

What do you think that exemplifies? Words are like numbers. They are meaningless gibberish until we agree to allow them to represent 'real things'. Those 'things' can be ideas, experiences, objects, and whatever; that we all share in common. Words don't come from one source, they are mutually developed, and agreed upon by those who participate in their use.

Truth: either God exists or He don't.

Think & Care

Return

Think & Care

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Think & Care

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member