Abiogenisis

[Subduction Zone]

It does not explain all of reality and is not for that?

How so? We do not have the answers to everything, but if you have noticed we keep getting more and more of those answers. It seems to be working pretty well to me.

True and atheists and skeptics also end up believing what they want to believe.

No. Not true at all. To be a skeptic means that you have to follow the evidence. There are people that claim to be skeptics, but really are not. Antivaxxers are not skeptics. They are deniers since the evidence is clear. Deny the evidence and one can no longer claim that one is a skeptic. A proper skeptic has no choice in belief.

 

[Brian2]

What is a god needed for with lightning? Once, it was thought a god threw lightning bolts down to earth or was expressing his anger. Today, we know that gods aren't needed for that, so the creationist refocuses on the matter and claims that a god is needed for electrons to exist. That's what's meant by the god of the gaps. Then, somebody comes along and shows that electrons, like all other matter, energy, and force, arose at the time of the Big Bang from a hot, dense state not containing electrons to start, and the god was then reassigned the task of creating that seed from which the universe bloomed.

You sounds as if you think that science has found out how the universe began or even if it did begin? I don't think so. That might be what an atheist might claim for science when it has not happened (like atheists saying that science has shown that abiogenesis is true) These things are what I call, science of the gaps. No more than claims.
God created the universe and everything in it and gave life to the life forms that He made. This is my claim.
It's just competing claims.

Science agrees that a god is not needed. If it didn't, you would know. You would see the god in the scientific description of lightning.

Actually science says nothing either way about the existence of God and the need for God.

That is saying the same as that science will never need a god in any of its facts, laws, and theories. When one is needed, it will be added to the narrative.

This seems to be an atheist debaters trick, to split up my statements and make comment on each little section and miss the meaning of the whole thing. I know that atheists look at the trees and miss the bigger picture of the forest but as a debating style it just makes the whole thing long and tedious and means that you end up not answering the overall meaning.
And no, what you said about my statement is not what it meant. I expect no God to pop up because God is a spirit and science cannot detect spirits and because science has a naturalistic methodology, a God is not allowed to pop up without being rejected for a naturalistic answer.

Yes, for an interventionist god. We don't expect the deist god to pop up. He's left the building. Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. No falsifying find for evolutionary theory after several generations of man is among the evidence that none will ever be found and that the theory is correct.

So you expect an interventionist God to pop up in scientific testing. Hmmm

This is what happens when one gratuitously tosses an unneeded god into the mix. Suddenly, the narrative becomes unnecessarily complex in violation of Occam's parsimony principle, and worse yet, to explain things never detected.

Personally I think the Biblical passages about physical material not being alive are a good reminder and wake up call, just in case people get tempted to take the naturalistic methodology too far and start saying that the material world can become conscious. Wake up, the physical universe is not alive or conscious.
Science and people who go along with whatever science says might not hear such a call of course.

You wrote this before. Your solution to what appears to be magic to you if it is said to be of naturalistic origin is to bring gods into nature to do the magic.

To have the origin of an intelligent design as an intelligence. To have the giver of life as previously existing life,,,,,,,,,,,,,, what we see all around us.
Not something acceptable to science, but it is evidence for God for me.

What you keep missing is that when you say that something can't be tested for, you are saying that it leaves no imprint on discernible reality. So what do we need this idea for? What does it explain if it doesn't create even a ripple onto the theater of consciousness? Worse, you also say that YOU can detect it anyway, that you have evidence that isn't evident. to "science." Anything evident is evident to scientists, too, and the rest of us. It makes no difference if spirit is "true" if it can't affect us. I put true in quotes because what we are describing is an unfalsifiable statement when we say that spirit exists but is undetectable, that is, makes no impact on conscious experience. We call such statements neither correct nor incorrect. We simply disregard them as meaningless.

Yes I know science merely disregards God and spirits as meaningless. It says neither yay nor nay to them. It is theists who say yay, I see the evidence and other historical evidence also and I believe, and atheists who say nay, I need more evidence or there are no gods.

And with good reason. They accurately predict outcomes. That's all we require to call a statement correct, or knowledge. One would need to falsify such an idea to identify it as incorrect, which can't happen with a correct idea.

I see evidence in NDEs that a brain is not required for consciousness and skeptics say "what evidence".

 

[Brian2]

So similar to the definition of theory that means guessing and speculation.

Yes I have faith that God exists. You have faith that if a God exists then science would be able to detect it even if the God is spirit and cannot be detected.

So you admit to adding your imagination when you think about these supernatural concepts, and that means non-rational? Why would you want to deceive yourself like this?

I see imagining the possibility of a God as part of rational thinking. It would be like being able to imagine the possibility of evolution as part of rational thinking about it.

Again, this is you admitting you want the Bible to mean something that objecively is not there and true. We critical thinkers want truth, not to believe what feels good to our ego and identity.

Your truth is that God does not exist and the Bible is not true, or you want more evidence for both. The evidence for God and the truth of the Bible is there for me to believe even if not you.

But notice you fail to explain that this is true. Believers learn to be religious because others artound them believe. If it was vampires that others believd in that would be what you likley accepted and adopted for your personal meaning. This is how social influence acts on the minds of people seeking to define their identity. This is conformity to group norms, and is an effect of how the human brain evolved.

We see in Scandanavian nations that with less religious influence the population will be less motivated to believe. So I think many ordinary believers could work to take back control over their minds and reject religious influences and build back their own agency and identity.

No thanks, I'll stick with my faith in God.

No Gods are known to exist, so not a valid option.

True, science does not work that way.

But there is no evidence that any such god exists outside of religious lore and human imagination.

I believe the evidence I see. You need science to tell you what your beliefs should be even if it tells you things based on the naturalistic methodology presumption. It is all that science can do, it can only tell us about it's conclusions based on what it can see. It sees no God and so leaves God out of it. The presumption.
It's easy to see what is happening for me. For you there is no reason to say that the science is wrong at these junctures, and that the science might be claiming stuff based on the presumption.
You just swallow it hook, line and sinker when I am more cautious.

This illustrates how believers confuse themselves by trying to understand science, but inject their religious beliefs. This is all learned behavior. Do you really not understand that ideas like gods are obsolete traditions of belief, and not relevant to describe what is rtreu about nature? You keep trying to drag a dead God into the discussion.

I can see what is happening in science and how it wants to describe what is true about nature.
I have a faith in God however and so ideas like gods are not obsolete to me even if they are to you.

Religious interpretation isn't evidence. You already admitted it is you that uses human imagination to interpret the Bible to suit your needs as a believer, so don't impose that error onto critical thinkers who are following actual facts to valid conclusions.

Science does not say that belief in God is wrong, even if you think it does. That is your belief, not that of science. But in a practical sense science does not consider God and so comes that a conclusion that someone who believes God does not exist would come to, someone like you.
It confirms your beliefs and feels like home to you I guess, even if it lacks all warmth and love and even if the reality is that it does not say that God does not exist.

What cases doesn't sceince work, in your non-expert opinion? And why does your non-expert opinion matter?

My non expert opinions is that science does not work when it is trying to tell us stuff which contradicts what God has said.
That opinion does not matter to you, that is my opinion and is what matters to me.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, a god hypothesis is different from a falsifiable hypothesis. But that difference doesn't excuse the metaphysical hypothesis from needing to be justified before being believed. Since that is impossible, belief should be withheld.

And you withhold your belief and I see it justified so believe.

That's what makes it NOT evidence for a god. Such evidence is evidence better explained supernaturally than naturalistically.

That you can explain it better naturalistically is the belief of someone who rejects the evidence altogether really.

How? In both cases, you just have reports that some people believe. The major difference is that few people are trying to convince you that they exist. There are no missions to spread the faith, no crusaders or conquistadores or inquisitions to promote the belief, nobody leaving promotional material in hotels or putting on commercials during the Superbowl. Jesus ad during Super Bowl: What is He Gets Us? - Deseret News But none of that makes the belief in a god any sounder than the belief in a vampire or leprechaun. Or Santa, which also has a method of promoting that belief that keeps children everywhere waiting for Santa until somebody tells them the truth.

It's just the truth.

The evidence for this god is the same as for vampires, leprechauns, and Santa - unverified claims of existence. You have decided to treat one of these categories differently from the rest. That's special pleading - an unjustified double standard. If you need a character to credit with the existence of nature, you could just as easily chose any one of these over any other. The fact that gods have been institutionalized only tells us that this idea has more utility, not that they are more real. What they all have in common and in common with everything else that has been imagined but doesn't exist except as an idea in some head or heads is that they cannot be experienced empirically. There is no time or place one can be to apprehend them or their actions through the senses, because there are none.

I experience God by faith. If I did not believe I would not be able to appreciate that what happened was God.
The Bible God also has done things in history and fulfilled many prophecies. That is different and shows a real God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, to me.

How? By analyzing its own consciousness, figuring out where it came from, and then replicating that?

Something like that I suppose.

You and I are conscious, and both wonder how that is possible and where it comes from. A conscious god has the same question to answer. How is possible that a conscious god can exist? This is the special pleading of theism. These questions are asked about everything but the deity. Other complexity needs an intelligent designer, but not gods. Other existence needs a source and an explanation, but not gods.

This is why god responses answer and explain nothing. It only kicks the can back one step and forces us to ask the same question about alleged deities, but the theist just won't go there. He will not treat these as questions as serious as his own questions such as yours about the origin of consciousness. He can't. They're his arguments for everything else needing a god to exist. You use this god to explain why you and I are conscious. Obviously, you have to take its own consciousness as a given. That's the special pleading. That's the unjustified double standard.

Yes there are special pleadings at this point, the beginning. Did life come from non life or did life come from life? An atheist has to say from non life.
Was there a first cause that just was/is and has life in it to give and can make and design stuff or was this universe always existing in some mode of existence? An atheist has to say the universe has always been, in some mode since absolutely nothing can produce nothing.
So we reach different conclusions and use different evidence to get to at least a basic direction to go for these conclusions.

No, we don't. We expect things that exist to have supporting evidence of their existence. When somebody tells me not only that he has no such evidence, but that no such evidence is even possible and to stop expecting any, I understand that as him believing in a fictional entity.

I don't say that, I just say that the evidence I accept is not accepted by you.

 

[Brian2]

You appear to be using an odd definition of the term "evidence". Claims are not evidence. Facts are not evidence. For example is the dead body evidence that the Butler did it? How are you defining "evidence"?

Evidence for God is something that shows me that God exists.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human the theist in human memory as the man with machine now and before. As his mass equals all types of man's science answers.

The man.

Machine from out of space cold metal seam pressures. Is laws he broke first. As only dusts on ground owned metals.

He cannot bring it into theory in living water bodies. As metal cold was in space nothing cold pressures. His warning to himself.

Yet he did.

His claim reactive science by machines causes what my god caused...effects isn't science. I was the reason of causes gained hot transmitters that took life's memories of water biology away from my origin man mind.

From out of space again. It crossed when I began to react actually removing my cold metal machines body. The design laws history it's body mass.

Broke earths planet God laws the rock.

Said men of the legally binding testimonials evidence. Science caused the sacrifice of all life on earth. Sacrifice is not a law. It's a cause.

Machine man today uses natural conscious spiritual warnings too. Claiming my theist mind puts machine body presence via all theisms plus data plus mass types as man body position biology replaced by a machine. It's presence.

Position one answer. Is a warning. Instead he then says let me make all new machines new reactions. As taught thesis. The body machine already said no man's bio life.

Against biology on earth. Planet earth men taught is a bio living planet. Where consciousness abides.

So his own natural mind told him that exact advice warning first. Which he ignores as self advised.

Nowhere else he said is living consciousness.

Artificial intelligence he designed himself by type of machine. It's type of transmitters and recording features.

He said after ice age man gained heavenly visions by those type of transmitters. Is not any machine. As it involved huge heavenly with space cold gases.

Wasn't what he used as temple machine transmitters of machine. As it's exact to the machine. Machine not any atmosphere.

Today the proven liar keeps on lying. He man I pulates all answers as he's greedy man. Greedy man existed first before inventive theist man.

Inventive theist man gave greedy man ideas how to be greedier by lifestyle of false ideals. For his practices a lifestyle.

Greedy man is false ideals. I paid the evil Satan devil to ferry over in a reaction his evil power into gods. God s powers colder in energy saved us.

A reaction. In machine status.

Doesn't equate to life of a rich man gets saved doing evils. As my brother confessed to father and told him just how wrong he was as greedy man.

If eternal the being who sent God O away out of its mass is conscious. God never was. As Eternal being remained as unconditional love in eternal.

If man comes out of eternal no longer the eternal being...size just a man it was for sending God away first into created creation caused. Then he was conscious of all wrong's the eternal had caused.

Man only coming into a water held heavens. Living spirit terms. Body mass of the pre existing God body.

Making him originally an astute scientist. Worst destroyer ever.

If images can emerge out of mass not physically seen first. Man proved the origin of mass had come from a spiritual place first.

Father said in heavens ours. Water is water. It never isn't water. Every single gas named by man remains exact the gas type.

It never went anywhere.

If a Body of gases in the mass was removed it was because man caused it to be burnt out as gases can be removed bodily in law.

Said the testimony against science.

Gases burning heats water. Biology dies sacrificed.

Bringing burning sun metals over into life's side sacrificed life constantly.

You were legally told to never cause it ever again. Rich men however flout all laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for God is something that shows me that God exists.

That is just confirmation bias. Evidence is ideally objective and not subjective.

 

[rational experiences]

In earths heavens where we live. Bio only.

In scientific causes man's subjective and objective God is cold sun metals.

That do not exist on earths mass side. In laws a metal is a dust in our heavens said men.

Man related subjective I want. Whose objective causes is to cause breaking of earths laws. Which only suns mass had.

Told as a sacrifice to origin fixed body creation.

In science gods body sacrificed is only science.

Never biology.

He lied. It was Legal he lied. He theoried humans death. He wanted instant bio removal.

As we live instant bio removal is instantly bio cell replaced by the mass body of its human body owned god.

Bio creates bio.

He theoried metal to remove instant bio cell.

 

[Brian2]

I don't think I'm following. Lightening and auroras were once attributed to God or supernatural forces. Now they are understood as natural. Science has explained them. Their mechanisms have been described, and no God, magic, or supernatural forces have been found necessary to explain them.
They were once fringe, and theists used them as evidence. Now that they're no longer fringe, and have been explained as natural, theists have moved on to the current fringe to claim magical evidence.

People who believed in gods were wrong to claim that stuff like lightning or auroras were things that their gods were doing just because they seemed out there and extraordinary. This was in an era where nobody knew the natural mechanisms of most things but I suppose it was only the extraordinary of those which were attributed to the gods and the people were superstitious so it was a reasonable thing to do for them.
Science found natural mechanisms and that no doubt eliminated the need for explaining them in terms of the current activities of their gods in the sky.
That however did not eliminate any need for god to have created the phenomena in the first place.
People stopped being so superstitious and beliefs about the activities of their gods in the sky changed I guess, so people started listening to science for explanations of nature. That is, explanations of what was happening in nature, not explanations of how nature came to exist.
Now science is at a point imo where it is claiming natural explanations for things that God said that He did and that imo is a good place to say science going too far. So what happens, atheists accuse us of claiming the old God of the Gaps theory.

Lightening and northern lights once were "God's areas at the fringes." Now they're not, and theists have moved on to abiogenesis and the Big Bang.
Both science and religion believe in abiogenesis. This is not where the disagreement lies. The disagreement is about mechanism. Religion claims magic. Science claims mechanism. The fact that the details of the mechanism are not yet known is not evidence of magic.

Lets face it the details/ mechanism of any abiogenesis will never be known as it will always be an educated guess even if the problems for abiogenesis are overcome.
I don't believe in abiogenesis even if other believers might. I'm waiting to see if science even comes up with a possible yes in saying that it is scientifically possible. But I am not saying that science will not one day say that it is scientifically possible and I'm not saying that it cannot fit into what Genesis tells us about the creation of life. This is hardly a God of the Gaps belief even if it is, for atheist, a Science of the Gaps thing. Atheists will always claim that science has said it happened naturally but really science will never be able to say "We know how it happened" or even "We know that it happened".
As for how the universe began, that also is always going to be an educated guess, based on the naturalistic methodology presumption even if science is going to go from one preferred hypothesis to another and so the scientific myth will change from generation to generation depending on the current preferred hypothesis.

Science isn't looking for evidence against God. Why would it? There is no reason to look for evidence against that for which there is already no evidence. Such things: Spaghetti Monsters, unicorns, leprechauns, &c, are already logically assumed nonexistent, inasmuch as they are currently unevidenced.
Why do you say science would reject evidence of God? Science is eager to investigate anything it's able to investigate, but it's unable to investigate that for which there is no concrete evidence. Science works with evidence.It's incapable of investigating that for which there's no evidence.

I don't think I said anything about science looking for evidence against God.
There actually is evidence for God which is either considered bad evidence or not even evidence by those who only accept evidence that science can use.
I suppose along with Spaghetti Monsters, unicorns and leprechauns, you logically assume the non existence of God. So you currently believe that God does not exist and will consider changing your mind if anything that you consider to be evidence pops up.
That is an honest admission.
Science cannot investigate God who has no concrete evidence. The evidence is real, but is just not concrete, it is evidence that can invoke belief however, so is evidence.
But humans are not "science" and we don't work under the same constraints. We can see when something is evidence or not even if science is not able to use it as evidence.

True. It's evidence God is not necessary to explain the thing in question.

Explain the mechanism? yes
Explain the existence of the mechanism? no.

 

[Brian2]

But why cite the Bible? Why not cite Hindu, Sikh or Mayan scriptures? Why not cite The Chronicles of Narnia?
The Bible's an ancient collection of folklore and mythology. It's not a science book.
The Bible has no passages that "show" anything. It just claims.

You asked why I do it and I told you.
Why do atheists claim spirit is not necessary for life when science is not even able to detect or test spirit? If science said that spirit is not necessary it would be just a claim. There is after all, evidence for spirit that is not evidence that science can use.

There is no empirical evidence for a soul. Consciousness, mind, emotion and will are utilitarian features that can be attributed to natural selection.

"Attributed to natural selection" seems to imply that there is no evidence for that, it is just something that is done because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because what?

It's religion that claims magical origins, not science. People who "go by what science says" believe in what there is evidence of, and defer belief in the unevidenced. This seems reasonable to me.
As soon as evidence of spirit is discovered, science will explore it, and people will believe it.

People already explore evidence for spirit and believe it. You must be talking about the sort of evidence that science is able to explore. There is other evidence that people can explore but science cannot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asked why I do it and I told you.
Why do atheists claim spirit is not necessary for life when science is not even able to detect or test spirit? If science said that spirit is not necessary it would be just a claim. There is after all, evidence for spirit that is not evidence that science can use.



"Attributed to natural selection" seems to imply that there is no evidence for that, it is just something that is done because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because what?



People already explore evidence for spirit and believe it. You must be talking about the sort of evidence that science is able to explore. There is other evidence that people can explore but science cannot.

Why do you constantly use strawman arguments?

 

[Brian2]

Never say never.

If science will ever be able to see or test for spirit that would mean that spirit exists.

So why do you, with your inability to see/test for spirit, conclude that life is not physically based?

Faith.

Huh? The bounds are delineated by evidence; by what can be detected. Do you expect science to study the undetected? How would it do that?

That is why I said "How can it be any other way?"
There is always physical evidence for things, spirit reaches into and effects the physical world even though it is not detectable. Life is seen as and defined to be the physical body and emergent properties of it.
Man always will reach back to try to work out possible mechanisms for creation etc which are naturalistic.

Faith is belief without evidence. How would one show anything if there were no evidence for it?
As for logical reasoning, ????????
How does logic apply? What premises are you applying logic to?

I would point to things in nature and ask how without an intelligence behind it?
I would point to things in the Bible (independently verified prophecies for eg) and ask, how without a God behind them?
I would point to belief in evidence that science is not able to study.
When it comes to analysing real evidence (even if science cannot use it) then logic is involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If science will ever be able to see or test for spirit that would mean that spirit exists.

No. That is not what that would mean.

Faith.

Which is not a pathway to the truth.

That is why I said "How can it be any other way?"
There is always physical evidence for things, spirit reaches into and effects the physical world even though it is not detectable. Life is seen as and defined to be the physical body and emergent properties of it.
Man always will reach back to try to work out possible mechanisms for creation etc which are naturalistic.

Irrational men will do that.

I would point to things in nature and ask how without an intelligence behind it?
I would point to things in the Bible (independently verified prophecies for eg) and ask, how without a God behind them?
I would point to belief in evidence that science is not able to study.
When it comes to analysing real evidence (even if science cannot use it) then logic is involved.

You would get explanations. And I do not know of any evidence that science cannot study. Are you sure that it is evidence?

 

[Brian2]

But there is no biblical evidence. There are just claims and statements, many of which are fantastical, objectively wrong, cherry picked or edited.
Where is the evidence?

I find that view to be from modern scholars who have come to the wrong conclusions while studying the Bible with the presumption that the supernatural is not real.
I find that view to be from modern science which have studied the archaeology of the Bible lands using wrong Biblical interpretations.
I find that view to be from skeptical analysis of the Bible.
etc etc

Huh? Please clarify.

Science is prepared to have no mechanism, just claim consciousness is a by product of matter.
Science otoh is not willing to have no mechanism when it comes to a God did it scenario.

If you imagine a living, conscious God as capable of giving life, then life could be attributed to this god. But you have not established that any such thing exists. It exists in your imagination. You just posited it.

What do you mean by dead being a "different nature," or not being able to give itself life?
What do you mean by life? How does it arise? What's needed for life?
Do you imagine it's some mysterious, magical 'essence', infused into non-living matter by God?

I have not scientifically established that God exists, true. An evidence for God is to look at things that only a living being can do, eg give life. and then postulate the existence of that being. This is not proof, this is just evidence for God, life is evidence of a life giver. That is what science has found with all life on earth, that life comes down from parents to children. The first life on earth is supposed to be different to this? Maybe but it is the exception to the rule and can never be proven imo.
The life of the body is possibly chemical in nature, the life which is consciousness and emotions and mind is something which is beyond matter and is not the nature of matter imo. A something beyond matter needs to be invoked for that imo.

We do not reject such evidence. How would we reject that which we don't see? Where is this evidence?

The claims of the Bible are evidence for God.

Chance? What do you mean by chance?
Empiricism and logic yield no evidence for any god.

Chance is what brought the universe to where it is if there is no creator.
Believing in empiricism and logic as the only things that yield evidence for God is a faith. The history in the Bible and elsewhere tells us of God and a spirit realm. Bring these things into play and use logic and faith and learn from our experience of God in our lives.

 

[Brian2]

How the genetic sequence sorted itself out is no mystery. It's simple selection.
"If no explanation of genetics, then God," is a false dichotomy.

It's true that no explanation of genetics, then God is a false dichotomy.
However it is also true that we don't know how the genetic system became a system for sorting and storing and using hereditary information.
The suggestion is that a system like that needs an intelligence to design and to set up.

How so? Why is unguided selection not sufficient? Why do we need to insert a magical agent? What mechanism did this agent employ, and where is the evidence for it?

The evidence imo is the complex system itself.
If science ever finds a mechanism for it's set up then great, but the complexity shows an intelligence behind it imo.
To say natural selection implies to me that the system set itself up and natural selection came into play from there. A self learning system, great, but how did it set itself up.

Yes, when we reject the unevidenced stories, all we have is knowledge ("science"). Please explain the circularity.

You show the circularity in what you said. You changed "science" for "knowledge". That presumes that science without revelation from God gives all the knowledge about reality that we will get. With that presumption then anything it leads to is considered to be 'knowledge' and any revelation from God is initially assumed to be wrong and irrelevant and in the end because only science without revelation is used, the conclusions end up showing that God is irrelevant and wrong. Sounds circular to me.

There is good reason to reject that for which there is no evidence. Do you believe in elves, unicorns or the FSM? Why? because there's no evidence? Elves are just as well evidenced as spirits, aren't they?
There is "no good reason" to reject stories of Spider Woman, Quetzalcoatl, or Thor, by that reasoning.

Science does not reject the possible existence of spirits or God, science just does not insert spirits or God into it's testing of the physical world because science cannot test for input from spirits or God.
It is atheists who take that to the next level of "Cannot detect spirits of God so they do not exist".
Then the false dichotomy of FSM, Spider Man etc are thrown around as if they are relevant when it is only God that has reasonable evidence for His existence.

No. That's ridiculous. The reasonable approach is to believe in that for which we have evidence, and to defer belief in that for which we have none.

So you defer belief in spirits and God in the Bible until you have more evidence for their existence. Belief in spirit and God through the stories in the Bible, the prophecies that have been fulfilled, the miracles and resurrection which have been the subject of witness reports is not even considered. You need more evidence of spirits and God before you accept them in the Bible.
It certainly helps to be open to the possibility of the supernatural when investigating the Bible otherwise I guess you reject the Bible out of hand and it is not seen as evidence of anything and you just accept whatever skeptical scholars say about the veracity of Bible as a source of anything except human imagination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find that view to be from modern scholars who have come to the wrong conclusions while studying the Bible with the presumption that the supernatural is not real.
I find that view to be from modern science which have studied the archaeology of the Bible lands using wrong Biblical interpretations.
I find that view to be from skeptical analysis of the Bible.
etc etc



Science is prepared to have no mechanism, just claim consciousness is a by product of matter.
Science otoh is not willing to have no mechanism when it comes to a God did it scenario.



I have not scientifically established that God exists, true. An evidence for God is to look at things that only a living being can do, eg give life. and then postulate the existence of that being. This is not proof, this is just evidence for God, life is evidence of a life giver. That is what science has found with all life on earth, that life comes down from parents to children. The first life on earth is supposed to be different to this? Maybe but it is the exception to the rule and can never be proven imo.
The life of the body is possibly chemical in nature, the life which is consciousness and emotions and mind is something which is beyond matter and is not the nature of matter imo. A something beyond matter needs to be invoked for that imo.




The claims of the Bible are evidence for God.



Chance is what brought the universe to where it is if there is no creator.
Believing in empiricism and logic as the only things that yield evidence for God is a faith. The history in the Bible and elsewhere tells us of God and a spirit realm. Bring these things into play and use logic and faith and learn from our experience of God in our lives.

You started off with a strawman argument again. How can anyone take you seriously when you do that?

If someone was arguing against Christianity by calling the crucifixion "Nailing someone to a tree" would you take anything they said after that seriously?

 

[Brian2]

What does atheism have to do with any of this? Atheists have no beliefs. No doctrine. No faith. No world view. No ideas about science or the origin of life. They just lack belief in God.
What does everything happens by chance mean? Everything happens by chemistry and physics. Not by chance.

Atheists sound like they don't exist.
Chemistry and physics happened by chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists sound like they don't exist.
Chemistry and physics happened by chance.

No. Chemistry and physics follow the laws of physics and chemistry.

 

[Valjean]

People who believed in gods were wrong to claim that stuff like lightning or auroras were things that their gods were doing just because they seemed out there and extraordinary. This was in an era where nobody knew the natural mechanisms of most things but I suppose it was only the extraordinary of those which were attributed to the gods and the people were superstitious so it was a reasonable thing to do for them.
Science found natural mechanisms and that no doubt eliminated the need for explaining them in terms of the current activities of their gods in the sky.
That however did not eliminate any need for god to have created the phenomena in the first place.

I'm not seeing the difference. You've just moved the goal post.

People stopped being so superstitious and beliefs about the activities of their gods in the sky changed I guess, so people started listening to science for explanations of nature. That is, explanations of what was happening in nature, not explanations of how nature came to exist.

Educated people believing in Q-anon, creationism and a young Earth doesn't strike me as an increase in rationality. It seems more an indication of scientific illiteracy.

Now science is at a point imo where it is claiming natural explanations for things that God said that He did and that imo is a good place to say science going too far. So what happens, atheists accuse us of claiming the old God of the Gaps theory.

This belief in God is a case in point. How is it rational?

Lets face it the details/ mechanism of any abiogenesis will never be known as it will always be an educated guess even if the problems for abiogenesis are overcome.

And man will never fly...
Have you reviewed the current evidence for abiogenesis? What makes you think this would be a more complicated problem than many other natural phenomena?
We don't have all the answers about biology, life or consciousness, but this seems to me no reason to believe there's any magic or invisible people involved.

I don't believe in abiogenesis even if other believers might. I'm waiting to see if science even comes up with a possible yes in saying that it is scientifically possible. But I am not saying that science will not one day say that it is scientifically possible and I'm not saying that it cannot fit into what Genesis tells us about the creation of life.

Genesis posits no explanation; no mechanism. It posits an agent -- and magic.
Why would belief in magic be more rational than belief in natural, familiar, observable, mechanisms?
What makes the Bible an authoritative scientific treatise? Is it more accurate than any other religion's creation mythology?

This is hardly a God of the Gaps belief even if it is, for atheist, a Science of the Gaps thing. Atheists will always claim that science has said it happened naturally but really science will never be able to say "We know how it happened" or even "We know that it happened".

Why do the religious feel a need to invoke unevidenced magic and invisible beings? This isn't rational. It's a special pleading.

I don't think I said anything about science looking for evidence against God.
There actually is evidence for God which is either considered bad evidence or not even evidence by those who only accept evidence that science can use.

Is evidence science can't use even evidence; does it even exist? We're all still waiting for this evidence.

I suppose along with Spaghetti Monsters, unicorns and leprechauns, you logically assume the non existence of God. So you currently believe that God does not exist and will consider changing your mind if anything that you consider to be evidence pops up.

Non-belief pending evidence is rational. It seems a logical presumption. How would it be otherwise?
Non-belief and disbelief aren't necessarily the same thing. God has the same epistemic validity as Cthulu. Wouldn't He be in the same ontological category, as well?

That is an honest admission.
Science cannot investigate God who has no concrete evidence. The evidence is real, but is just not concrete, it is evidence that can invoke belief however, so is evidence.

Not just non-concrete; non-objective, non-empirical. How is this distinguished from non-evidence?
Is the ability to invoke belief evidence? That would open a huge can of worms.

People believe all sorts of contradictory and irrational things. They always have. It seems to me that this would be evidence that invoking belief has no relationship to actual evidence at all. Belief seems not related to reason, logic or evidence, in many cases.

But humans are not "science" and we don't work under the same constraints. We can see when something is evidence or not even if science is not able to use it as evidence.

Excellent point. Throughout history humans have fervently believed all sorts of absurd and irrational things. We're not wired for critical analysis. Quick, unevidenced decisions got us through the stone age. Individuals who stopped to evidence gather or think, on hearing a rustle in the grass, were removed from the gene pool by smilodons.
Rationality must be learned.

 

[Valjean]

You asked why I do it and I told you.
Why do atheists claim spirit is not necessary for life when science is not even able to detect or test spirit? If science said that spirit is not necessary it would be just a claim. There is after all, evidence for spirit that is not evidence that science can use.

Why do theists claim spirit is necessary, when they're not even able to detect it?

Science does not say spirit is unnecessary. It says there's no evidence for spirit, so it's non-existence is presumed.
The presumption of non-existence, in the absence of evidence, is the epistemic default. It assumes no burden. The burden of proof is entirely on the ones making the positive claim that spirit exists or is necessary.

"Attributed to natural selection" seems to imply that there is no evidence for that, it is just something that is done because,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because what?

Because natural selection is the familiar, observed, commonsense, tested mechanism of morphology and psychology. "Design" is an extraordinary, unevidenced, unnecessary claim.

People already explore evidence for spirit and believe it. You must be talking about the sort of evidence that science is able to explore. There is other evidence that people can explore but science cannot.

The only evidence for spirit is subjective, ie: personal experience of emotion. This may be sufficient for a personal belief, but without objective, demonstrable evidence, how could one reasonably claim it?