Abiogenisis

[F1fan]

Yes I have faith that God exists.

Not justified true belief due to following facts. Not knowledge. Faith, as you learned from other religious people, and unreliable.

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.

This is completely untrue. We discuss gods because many humans have a tradition of belief that has been transfered down through generations. Theists can't defines or describe what this is, and there is no fact or observations that informs believers. Science is fairly new in comparison and has damaged what believers think is true for sevral centuries. This conflict continues with more fringe and fervent believers who rejecy science and exvertise, and oddly use technology to spread their disinformation.

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.

You seem to be confusing fantasy with problem solving capabilities. Both Darwin and Wallace observed natural selection in nature and they used they ability for abstract thinking and problem solving to form explanations for what they observed. Ancients did a similar thing in experiencing a flood or earthquake that caused damage and lacking adequate knowledge to explain why these things happened they used their abstract thinking to conjure gods in control of everything. They used the model of typical human life to create male gods who got angry with his children. Yahweh started out as part of a collection of gods and even had a wife. These gods were invented to answer qustions, but they were not factual answers.

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.

You can always tell when a theist is feeling threatened, and they start telling non-believers what they believe. This quote is an example and inaccurate. This is usually an effort to make the skeptic seem similar to the believer to diminish the non-rational beliefs of the theist. This suggests there is consciousness of holding false ideas and bad conclusions. This is another example of the fear response mechanism.

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

Why?

I believe the evidence I see.

Why don't skeptics "see" what you see? Are you special, or are you assigning too much significance to weak evidence?

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.

Here you do it again, trying to attack science as a reliable means to understand what is true about reality, and inflating your flawed religious beliefs. Notice you say nothing here that advances your beliefs with facts and a coherent explanation, it is mostly just repeating belief as if to reinforce them to yourself.

Science is a reliable method that explains what is true about the universe, and you seem hostile to that.

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.

When you can't get science right because you have bias due to religious belief you have a problem.

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.

More defensive, passive agressive comments. God concepts are irrelevant to science. There are no facts that suggest this set of ancient ideas are true.

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.

Your assumptions distort any understanding you can have about how things are in the universe. You make no effort to think about how you came to believe in religious concepts. I asked who told you these ideas are true and you avoided them. What are you afraid of in pondering how social and cultural influence creates new believers, including you. I ask believers if they have special abilities to sense the evidence for God, no answer. Could it be you are aware that you did not make a deliberate and conscious decision that a God exists?

 

[Valjean]

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

OK. So what's your point? If science finds evidence for spirit, then it can study it and will believe in it.

Faith.

OK. Unjustified belief, then.
How is that rational?

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.

If there's always physical evidence for things, where's the physical evidence for spirit? If life is physical + emergent properties, where's the spirit, or the need for it?

Man always will reach back to try to work out possible mechanisms for creation etc which are naturalistic.

I disagree. Many seem satisfied with only a proposed agent, sans mechanism.

I would point to things in nature and ask how without an intelligence behind it?

You learned the 'how' in school, and we've explained it here in countless posts for years.
You're positing magic, and arguing from personal incredulity.

I would point to things in the Bible (independently verified prophecies for eg) and ask, how without a God behind them?

Everybody has prophecies, even non-religious sources, and they're usually vague and ambiguous. Alleged prophecy is not unique to Christianity.
There are also wrong and unfulfilled prophecies, but everyone seems to ignore these, or sweep under the rug, or come up with convoluted rationalizations, if pressed.
People are naturally apophenic. We see patterns where there are none.

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.

What is this undetectable evidence? If it can't be studied, how does it differ epstemically from nonexistent evidence?
Q: Are you talking about subjective evidence: visions, hallucinations, delusions, &c? These may be personally evidential, to an individual, but as empirical or apologetic evidence of an objective reality, they're pretty useless.

 

[Valjean]

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

It is pretty well certain that the Egyptian exodus and world flood never happened, and there are dozens of other minor historical errors and ambiguities. The miracles are suspect, and Testimony unreliable, for several reasons. The authors of most (all?) of the books are unknown. There are many scriptures that were excluded, as inconsistent with the doctrines of the most powerful, orthodox churches.

Unlike some other religious scriptures,the Bible is not a consistent, coherent work. It's neither reliable nor authoritative.

The presumption that the supernatural is not real is reasonable. Nothing supernatural has ever been established. There's no evidence for it. There's no need to propose it.

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.

Science is never satisfied with no mechanism, but it is willing to admit when a mechanism is unknown.
You mention "the supernatural," and imply it has no mechanism. But you haven't established even the existence of a supernatural, with or without mechanism.
What consciousness is and how it's produced is largely a mystery, as science concedes.

The "God did it" scenario is not within the purview of science. It's not a claim of mechanism. Science balks here because there's neither evidence for nor need of an agent. Science studies How? not Who?

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.

Why do you say only a living being can 'give life'?

This is not proof, this is just evidence for God, life is evidence of a life giver.

This is not evidence for God. Life is not evidence for a life giver, any more than a storm is evidence for a conscious storm giver.

That is what science has found with all life on earth, that life comes down from parents to children.

So God's not needed? The parent-child sequence has gone on forever?

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.

You acknowledge there was a "first life?" So what was it like? Where did it come from? How was it created?
I consider magic very unlikely.

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.

OK. So why do you think this. Defend your hypothesis.

A something beyond matter needs to be invoked for that imo.

Why? Explain, please.

The claims of the Bible are evidence for God.

Are the claims of The Lord of the Rings evidence for orcs?
The claims of the Bible are authoritative only to those who already hold the Bible to be authoritative.

Chance is what brought the universe to where it is if there is no creator.

Chance may have created the original conditions of Reality; the physical laws and constants, but after this, it all proceeded automatically, driven by the interactions said laws mandate.

Believing in empiricism and logic as the only things that yield evidence for God is a faith.

How are you defining "faith?"
There is evidence that empiricism and logic work. Faith is belief without evidence.

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.

First I'd have to access God and a spirit realm. How would I do that? If I could do it, why couldn't everyone? Why isn't there universal belief and consensus?
Logic and faith? Algebra and unsubstantiated belief? What established premises should I apply this logic to? And how would unfounded belief be of any use, here?

 

[Valjean]

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

No. We believe what the weight of evidence indicates, whether we like it or not.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Nobody claims to have the answer to how the universe began. It's an ongoing study.
Atheists? What do atheists have to do with this? Why not bring up a-unicornists. What's their position on the issue?
Don't both scientists and theists believe in abiogenesis?

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.

Not equal claims. One claim is evidenced, the other not.

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.

Who are these "atheists?" Are they some sort of organized group or political bloc?
I don't think it's atheists commenting. I think it's critical thinkers.

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

I expect something claimed to be real to have evidence of its reality, or be reasonably dismissed as unreal.

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.

But I'm part of the physical world, and I'm conscious.
The early Earth had no consciousness or life. Now it does. The material became conscious.
Magic? or chemistry?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The ridiculous thing I find about science and the Abrahamic religion is that people use science's presumption of no supernatural in their study of the Bible and end up with circular reasoning in their conclusions about aspects of the Bible.

Science has no presumption regarding the supernatural.

OK so all humans can see beyond science and know there are other possibilities outside of the scientific sphere.

No, nobody can see anything but his own mind, which includes both the evidence of the senses and a menagerie of other phenomena like memories, emotions, desires, and the like that arise from within and are products of the brain, not experiences of external reality. Intuition is one of these. People commonly have intuitions created by religious teaching which they mistake for evidence of the senses. They say they experienced God.

you say God probably does not exist because God has no evidence.

The god of the Christian Bible can be ruled out empirically and using pure reason, but gods meant more generally cannot be ruled out, and I assign no probability to their existence. How could I? I would have no way to know if a noninterventionist god like the deist god exists or existed.

the evidence exists, it is just that you dismiss it.

No, I interpret it differently. What believers call evidence for a god doesn't support their belief sufficiently to share it.

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

Yes, but if you're implying that faith and critical thinking are equivalent, I would disagree. What the two want to believe are radically different kinds of things. The critical thinker wants to believe correct things, and he has a method for distinguishing correct ideas from incorrect ones and unfalsifiable ones, which are neither. The faith-based thinker doesn't require justification for his beliefs by the standards of critical thinking.

[Science] does not explain all of reality

It explains all that has been explained about reality or will be described about reality. If a question cannot be answered empirically, it cannot be answered. This does not make faith an alternate path to truth. Faith explains none of reality. There is no alternate path to truth if the word is to mean more than just a cherished belief.

You sounds as if you think that science has found out how the universe began or even if it did begin?

No, I don't, and don't know why you think I do. This is that phenomenon where ideas metamorphose between what is written and what is understood.

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.

That's called analysis. It's a word comprising the Greek roots ana- ‘up’ + luein ‘loosen’. To analyze, we break something into its components and study them. The opposite is synthesis, where we combine elements again (from syn- "together" + tithenai "to put, to place"). And we take a holistic view, combining the reductionist insights of analysis with those following the consideration of the whole. That's exactly what we are doing with life - looking at it at the smallest scales using analysis, and at the largest scales such as with ecology or evolution.

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

Yes. If it part of reality, its interventions ought to be detectable and not explainable by known natural mechanisms. If this entity cannot affect experience, it is indistinguishable from everything else that cannot affect experience and can be treated as nonexistent.

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

Why would you say that? Has anybody without a brain reported a near death experience?

I see imagining the possibility of a God as part of rational thinking.

Yes, so do I, which is why I call myself an agnostic atheist, but believing is not supported by reason or evidence.

My non expert opinions is that science does not work when it is trying to tell us stuff which contradicts what God has said.

Or, empirical support for the claims of men about what a god told them to tell you is lacking because they are just making it up. Are you familiar with the American rookie congressman George Santos, who lies continually. How do they know? Empirical support for his claims is either lacking or contradicts those claims. Likewise with gods.

I experience God by faith. If I did not believe I would not be able to appreciate that what happened was God.

Then what's all this talk about evidentiary support for that belief?

Did life come from non life or did life come from life? An atheist has to say from non life.

So should you, even if you believe life on earth was created by a god. I've already explained why to you twice. If you consider your god alive, then it is life that didn't come from previous life, and if you considered disembodied mind not living because it does none of the physical things living things do, then its creation is the life that didn't come from previous life. You didn't attempt to refute that either of the other two times I posted that, so I assume that you won't this time either, which I've explained is conceding the point. Correct statements cannot be successfully refuted. Think about it. Think of a statement that you know is true. Let's assume that your actual first name is Brian, the name on your birth certificate, and that I want to try to falsify that claim. I can't if it is correct, as is my comment above, which falsifies the claim that life only comes from existing life. Feel free to ignore the argument again and make the same mistake again. I'll correct you again as well if I see it.

An atheist has to say the universe has always been, in some mode since absolutely nothing can produce nothing.

No. Maybe you should stop trying to speak for atheists and repeating what your elders tell you they believe. They have no incentive to be honest or accurate. The opposite is the case. They have an incentive to misrepresent atheists' views, since they have no rebuttal to them. Easier to rebut your own straw man transformation. Just write something few or no atheists say and then explain why it's ridiculous.

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.

Your wait is over. The answer is yes. Scientists very much consider it possible, which is why many devote careers to studying the problem, and others underwrite their research. They all believe abiogenesis is possible.

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.

No, that is not evidence of a god if it isn't evident. This is a simple and basic concept. It is incoherent to call something evidence and then say that it is not evident to scientists. What the believer has is an insufficiently supported, endogenously generated intuition.

Why do atheists claim spirit is not necessary for life when science is not even able to detect or test spirit?

They don't - at least I don't. What I say is that the idea explains nothing and is needed for nothing. Matter apparently lives just by being organized a particular way. It happens every day in every living cell as it metabolizes nutrients and grows and repairs itself. Ingredients are absorbed from the cellular milieu and organized into life. Maybe you think a spirit is overseeing the ribosomes transcribing into proteins, but it seems to occur without intelligent oversight and without the need for any other ingredient but matter.

Science is prepared to have no mechanism, just claim consciousness is a by product of matter.

No, science doesn't claim that, either, but where's the evidence that mind isn't an emergent epiphenomenon of matter? There is none.

That presumes that science without revelation from God gives all the knowledge about reality that we will get.

Can you rebut that? What knowledge about reality do we have that isn't empirically determined, and remember, by knowledge, I don't mean anything that people believe is true, but ideas that are demonstrably correct, meaning that they can be used to predict outcomes. Ideas that can't do that should not be called knowledge.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans state space is an infinite form. Claim I'm going to study it.

Basic question. What for?

Real answer as theists lie.... I want to copy it's functions by knowing it.

Another question...what for?

Men on earth say I want it's resources for my human Rich man lifestyles and controls. Ultimate greed.

Pretty basic it's not science. It's I want.

Mind of humans know they didn't invent cause the creation in conceit infinite terms as a human whose intent is a machine reaction.

Basic advice is about humans who owned motivated self destructive behaviours. Human warnings.

So he knows that exact advice.

Instead of claiming I'll copy he now says I'll channel. As he knows it's humans conscious advice.

Yet he says a channel with machines are transmitters.

No he says not that type of channel I mean flowing channel involving phi calculus.

O opened space holes mass moving through as an above heavens theme. Position one where Infinite is. Above us.

So memory looking back historic is billions of humans owned experiences.

Memory the human.

Memory isn't universal. The number thought masses of is about how many humans have expressed an experience.

As human dead is the end of consciousness.

Science of bio pre living is a monkey. Who doesn't express many evaluations of intellect.

Then science is studying dead humans. Consciousness he says in mind was established by living but masses of now dead humans.

Totality of what I know.

So advice says the information to his mind.

Isn't universal.

Therefore historic. Men built the henges to deal with the fall of man. Gases burning falling heated water. As metal UFO body mass cooling is its owned travel. That would interfere with his transmitter science.

So he thought if he stopped it hitting the ground above water in bio atmosphere as mass would channel it into water.

Was his belief.

Instead like his machine science before it blew up. As henges.

The humans memory idea of bio claim my heavens above me to the channel of phi. Ended as a huge reactive explosion burning. Memory itself.

Isn't any reaction a machine now.

Humans scientific memory that human scientists access utilise as ideas from the past. Just and only ever a human using human only calculated science. For science practice on earth.

So all correlated thinking concepts a natural aware human says tells us he wants life deceased. Once again. Same types of human only personalities.

Human owned behaviours only about humans first and not actual science.

As the human scientist says I only invented the use science for mechanics. The machine.

Why a man says confessed I built the machine to take biologies place. By using the machine. Reacting machine. Knowing it kills us off.

Fully aware. Advised and accepted.

How psychic natural aware healer humans warned their family before he achieved the outcome.

Each science moment before his return to consciousness told he destroyed all life on earth by technology to bios gained carbon. As he keeps claiming his new model is safer.

As each time the infinite O body to space relationship takes earths energy mass closer to its coldest position. Less earth mass heat it's death.

As it's the first body that man's science is referencing as science. As ice mass instant snap freeze is Gods earth body saviour twice in ancient earths history.

Never was the first of science about biology being his con lie deception.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans state space is an infinite form. Claim I'm going to study it.

Basic question. What for?

Real answer as theists lie.... I want to copy it's functions by knowing it.

Another question...what for?

Men on earth say I want it's resources for my human Rich man lifestyles and controls. Ultimate greed.

Pretty basic it's not science. It's I want.

Mind of humans know they didn't invent cause the creation in conceit infinite terms as a human whose intent is a machine reaction.

Basic advice is about humans who owned motivated self destructive behaviours. Human warnings.

So he knows that exact advice.

Instead of claiming I'll copy he now says I'll channel. As he knows it's humans conscious advice.

Yet he says a channel with machines are transmitters.

No he says not that type of channel I mean flowing channel involving phi calculus.

O opened space holes mass moving through as an above heavens theme. Position one where Infinite is. Above us.

So memory looking back historic is billions of humans owned experiences.

Memory the human.

Memory isn't universal. The number thought masses of is about how many humans have expressed an experience.

As human dead is the end of consciousness.

Science of bio pre living is a monkey. Who doesn't express many evaluations of intellect.

Then science is studying dead humans. Consciousness he says in mind was established by living but masses of now dead humans.

Totality of what I know.

So advice says the information to his mind.

Isn't universal.

Therefore historic. Men built the henges to deal with the fall of man. Gases burning falling heated water. As metal UFO body mass cooling is its owned travel. That would interfere with his transmitter science.

So he thought if he stopped it hitting the ground above water in bio atmosphere as mass would channel it into water.

Was his belief.

Instead like his machine science before it blew up. As henges.

The humans memory idea of bio claim my heavens above me to the channel of phi. Ended as a huge reactive explosion burning. Memory itself.

Isn't any reaction a machine now.

Humans scientific memory that human scientists access utilise as ideas from the past. Just and only ever a human using human only calculated science. For science practice on earth.

So all correlated thinking concepts a natural aware human says tells us he wants life deceased. Once again. Same types of human only personalities.

Human owned behaviours only about humans first and not actual science.

As the human scientist says I only invented the use science for mechanics. The machine.

Why a man says confessed I built the machine to take biologies place. By using the machine. Reacting machine. Knowing it kills us off.

Fully aware. Advised and accepted.

How psychic natural aware healer humans warned their family before he achieved the outcome.

Each science moment before his return to consciousness told he destroyed all life on earth by technology to bios gained carbon. As he keeps claiming his new model is safer.

As each time the infinite O body to space relationship takes earths energy mass closer to its coldest position. Less earth mass heat it's death.

As it's the first body that man's science is referencing as science. As ice mass instant snap freeze is Gods earth body saviour twice in ancient earths history.

Never was the first of science about biology being his con lie deception.

Another reason self proof science was not about biologies presence.

Nuclear model to day is a new model he thought upon henges failure cooling a nuclear mass. He designed the power plant to overcome the event.

Not interfering with phi fallout causes. Natural cooling by natural pressures laws that dealt with ancient caused burning mass of a star. Gods heavens.

 

[Brian2]

What evidence do you have that God said this?

Faith.

Like what you claim God said?

Yes.

Now you've given up on questioning abiogenesis or evolution, and retreated to the unevidenced claim that God was simply the one who originally set it all in motion.
Why do you say there's any need for a magical personage at all? Why do you think this?

Intelligent design. Things don't come from nothing. Time could not have gone into the past forever. Consciousness does not come from dead matter.

It's not that it's unacceptable, it's that it's unevidenced. It's folklore; just one story in hundreds about gods and magical origins. Why do you believe this particular one?

Why do you believe it is no more than folklore? Why are fulfilled prophecies not evidence? Why are witnessed supernatural events not evidence?

It's not that science can't use it. It's that there is no evidence for God; no evidence supporting it and no reason to believe it true.

Yes it seems skeptics reject evidence for God until there is evidence for God. Weird but true. Still there are a variety of contradictory stories about God so which one to accept. I can understand that.
With the gospel story there is multiple witness accounts to support it.
I suppose if you look at nature and say that it could have made itself given time and come to life to see itself, because it needed to, then for you there is no reason to see the need of a creator even if neither you nor science has no real evidence for these things, just a supposition.

"Supernatural" is always logically assumed to be untrue. It's always unsupported, has never been observed and has no proposed mechanism. It's an assertion of magic.
Curious people study all sorts of things without accepting their claims.

It's a case of rejecting the evidence for the supernatural because we need evidence of the supernatural first, and it leads to circular reasoning.

It means spirit has the same likelihood of existing as any other undetectable thing: leprechauns, unicorns, transdimentional creator mice, &al.

No there is evidence apart from being detected by science. But that evidence is rejected because it is not detectable by science.

No, the rational approach is to defer belief in things for which there is no evidence or reason to believe. Science and skeptics are not irrational. Theists are -- by definition.
Science does not deny the possibility of leprechauns or Cthulu, but do you believe in them; do you treat them as possibilities to be considered?

Atheists and skeptics do not deny the possibility of gods or spirits. They just defer belief, pending evidence.

We all will believe in the Spaghetti Monster if it appears to us, but in the meantime we do not believe in the spaghetti monster,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that is the same as saying that in the meantime we say that the spaghetti monster does not exist.

 

[Brian2]

How does the fruit of probability, in terms of abiogenesis and evolution, conceptually differ from the fruit of God? If a bunch of chemicals were to somehow sequentially form into the very first cell precursors; implied by statistical abiogenesis and evolution, how does that conceptually differ from God doing it? How does the physics differ in terms of the two mechanisms?

Both theories use an indescribable nebulous variable, to fill in the blanks. What is the physics behind Lady Luck? Does the similarity make the fruit of statistical assumptions, a type of religion, since it works, vey similar to the way of God? Separation of church and state will require we defund it, unless it seeks religious exemptions.

If I go to a gambling casino, the odds of winning are based on the same statistical math, as evolution. How can I tell the difference in outcome, if I do not win, from God did it, or Lucky Luck did it? Is the physics different? Do we even know Lady Luck physics? Is there an experiment we can do to see which God (god) gives us the final result, since both involve some type of faith based black box hocus pocus? Maybe someone can explain why the odds of Lady Luck exist but the odds from another God is impossible? The only difference is Lady Luck is not named as a being, even though her output skills are that of a goddess. The used car salesman will say that oil puddle is not from this car, so he can sell the car that leaks oil. I see oil!

God's will is not human will. The will of Lady Luck is also not about human will. They both agree in that sense. In terms of how each system works, in gist, God's will is based on his long term view, where even if we lose, it can still be a blessing in disguise or not. We will know over time. Lady Luck is more based on short term situational, for each day or moment at the casino. Her whims can be prob or con and turn on a dime. This is one difference between these two mystery religions. Our universe may have variety in terms of stars but each follows similar principles. This is sort of a composite affect of the two.

What type of experiment can we run to tell the difference between these two faith based mystery religions, when neither are fully logical or predictable by logic? Both sort of use their own black boxes for the mystery of faith. Why does science prefer the religion of Lady Luck, to define evolution, seeing Lady luck is situational, and her whims can change second to second with no long term plan? Won't this make the final odds for all the steps needed for life, near impossible? Since God is looking longer term, his odds become better between steps; one step can load the next dice, allowing the near impossible for Lady Luck, to still be possible. Loaded dice make us win more often. Dice not loaded win less often.

The Bible says that humans were made in the image of God and not the image of Lady Luck. When we build a car, we don't use the blindfolded building technique, each time, like Lady Luck. We tend to load the dice with an assembly line, with the long term image of the perfect final car always in sight. If humans can do this, why is the goddess of science made so dumb? Does this have anything to do with the human ego? If we pick Lady Luck, we can do better than the gods and therefore we are like the gods? This might intoxicate the ego of science.

Why doesn't science have a problem with the Lady Luck religion still being in science? The tax payers need to demand fair treatment in science, or else both God (gods) need the boot. It is illegal to only favor the goddess of the Atheist religion. Government is not allowed to institute any one religion with similar gods in terms of functionality; both can do anything. The time scale is different.

Water allows one to load the dice of Lady Luck. Water has powerful self adhesion at the nanoscale and always tries to form lowest potential. The organics can interfere with this, but in the the end they need to follow; loading their dice. You can beat Lady Luck in casinos, if you can count cards with water; image of God. But card counting is illegal so the house can always win.

Interesting

 

[rational experiences]

Pretty basic advice.

Men taught science by earths star mass returned. Changed biology brain mind to human theist versus human nature.... weren't invented by conjuring.

As machines that conjure image and voice ...recordings are man built man caused he sees the causes he witnessed causes by machine.

He says machine is past mass. Reactions past mass. He does first reaction puts a state before him not there naturally.

Now it's before him a cause of man's science.

Builds machine it's not alive it owns no mechanics he gives it life as a resource.

Resource life machine not functional til a thinking conscious man orders controls the machine mechanics to change mass.

Not a sun mass not a star mass it is changed.

So man of science knew he conjured gods spirit images voices recordings himself. Of all earth types. Not just biology.

As man is his own man god said man to man of science.

I'm historic by all studies biology not spirit image. Said man.

So AI man designed isn't our creator. His God theoried by men thinking as humans first.

Yet man of science want it to be our creator. AI thesis.

Behaviour... if I get the contacts interactive with biology I'll contact gods spirit... I'll own a non stop resource and will be the richest most powerful human ever.

So if he wants his god as a resource he already knows he's lying. Self image self voice.

As the state position he says is before living biology.

Self destructive human personality choices says.... I destroy anything I want. I'm powerful. Is a human scientist. Enjoys destroying studying as he destroys and is a human.

Another proof he's lying. He's mutual equal the human.

Only personality disorders think that way.

The type of mass is suns star mass. No human is a suns star mass. Pre state he theories about.

Humans told the scientist you took living Waters biology. Carbon sacrificed life's food beginning's. Microbes lost microbes still living and caused image voice recording.

Water our mass doesn't speak. Biology main percentile is water.

 

[Valjean]

Intelligent design. Things don't come from nothing. Time could not have gone into the past forever. Consciousness does not come from dead matter.

Only the religious claim things came from nothing, spoken into being or created from dust. Biologists make no such claims.
Misrepresenting abiogenesis or evolution doesn't strengthen your case.
You're proposing magic. Can you support the claim with any objective evidence?

Why do you believe it is no more than folklore? Why are fulfilled prophecies not evidence? Why are witnessed supernatural events not evidence?

Fulfilled prophecies would be evidence of fulfilled prophecies, not for any other theological claims.
* Most fulfilled prophecies are vague, ambiguous interpretations, not clear, specific predictions.
* There is prophecy claimed for every religion, cult and palm reader. It is not exclusive evidence for Christianity. There are witnesses to miraculous events in other religions. Are all of them right?
* People are apophenic. They see images in clouds, faces in toast, connections where there are none. They see references to whatever mythology they've bought into.
* Are you ignoring the false prophecies, like the destruction of Tyre or Jesus' return within his disciple's lifetimes? People read all sorts of things into the Bible. https://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
* Witnessed supernatural events? Witness are unreliable, even first-person eyewitness. Ask any psychologist, neurologist, judge or policeman.
If eyewitnesses in a modern courtroom are unreliable, how much more so witnesses from a thousand years ago, and stories retold thousands of times, enhanced, and tailored to individual agendas?
* Would anyone believe a modern eyewitness, claiming to have seen any biblical-type miracles, be believed today? Would retelling the story thousands of times over a thousand years increase its reliability?

Yes it seems skeptics reject evidence for God until there is evidence for God. Weird but true. Still there are a variety of contradictory stories about God so which one to accept. I can understand that.
With the gospel story there is multiple witness accounts to support it.

There are multiple witness accounts of all sorts of bizarre or contradictory events, every day, from every religion and mental hospital.
The gospel story, itself, is inconsistent and contradictory, even considering the cherry picked gospels its drawn from.

I suppose if you look at nature and say that it could have made itself given time and come to life to see itself, because it needed to, then for you there is no reason to see the need of a creator even if neither you nor science has no real evidence for these things, just a supposition.

There is no 'need to." Nature flourished and diversified through millions of small changes, cherry picked for best fit, by natural, familiar, observable, testable,mechanisms.
Which of these mechanisms do you question? If you're arguing from incredulity, why do you see accumulated small changes, selection, or chemistry as more incredible than magic poofing, walking on water, water to wine, raising the dead, or the Sun stopping in the sky?
There is hard evidence supporting abiogenesis and evolution. There are folk tales supporting the many creation myths and miraculous events claimed by religions.

It's a case of rejecting the evidence for the supernatural because we need evidence of the supernatural first, and it leads to circular reasoning.

Rejecting evidence until there is evidence? What does that mean?

Where is the circular reasoning? You keep ignoring the fact that there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural. It is not a credible premise.

No there is evidence apart from being detected by science. But that evidence is rejected because it is not detectable by science.

Again. What evidence? I don't think you understand what evidence is, or how to assess validity.

We all will believe in the Spaghetti Monster if it appears to us, but in the meantime we do not believe in the spaghetti monster,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that is the same as saying that in the meantime we say that the spaghetti monster does not exist.

Substitute raising the dead, speaking things into existence, or living three days inside a fish, for Spaghetti Monster. No observable, testable evidence for any of them. Same truth value.

 

[Valjean]

I said:
What evidence do you have that God said this?

Faith.

So mere belief in a thing is evidence it exists?
Some people believe in elves, sasquatches, reptilians and chupacabras. Is this evidence that they exist? That is what you're saying, here.

As I've said before, we're talking past each other. You creationists are using a definition of 'evidence' wide enough to float an oil tanker through. It's unworkable nonsense, and you must know this. Evidence is more than belief. Faith has zero evidentiary value.

This is why we continue to annoy you with endless requests for evidence. When you do respond, you respond with nonsense like this, or with moth-eaten, long debunked canards like the watchmaker/junkyard argument or irreducible complexity.

Intelligent design. Things don't come from nothing.

You mean complex things, I assume.
Why not? If you understand how atoms interact and form molecules, and molecules interact to form structures, and structures interact -- and reproduce, all unguided, you wouldn't have such personal incredulity.

Time could not have gone into the past forever.

Exactly what science says.

Consciousness does not come from dead matter.

You mean lifeless matter? Then where did it come from, and how?
We don't really understand what consciousness is, and to make such blanket statements is premature. Goddidit, doesn't explain it. It just credits it.

Essentially, you're arguing a fantasy; a mythological world of magic, guided by invisible spirits. You have tradition, convention and popular assent. It's a comforting, familiar, paternal world, but there is no actual, empirical, evidence supporting its reality, nor a need for an invisible, intelligent designer.

 

[Valjean]

wellwisher said: ↑
How does the fruit of probability, in terms of abiogenesis and evolution, conceptually differ from the fruit of God? If a bunch of chemicals were to somehow sequentially form into the very first cell precursors; implied by statistical abiogenesis and evolution, how does that conceptually differ from God doing it. How does the physics differ in terms of the two mechanisms?

Only one is a mechanism. Only one is guided, intentional, planned.
Very different concepts.

 

[rational experiences]

Science theoried as space to be his laws mechanics.

By human man.

Is the universe mechanics?

No.

Did he transcend metals cold from hot melt history via dusts. That the sun had converted a very long time ago.

So flooding plus void vacuum took away sacrificed attack of God the earth? By the sun reason of the state to convert...mechanics.

Yes.

No abiogenisis.

Cooling of heated water by burning gases. Original amount of microbes life in water used for healthy cells it's food with water minerals was first present.

Off the ground higher dust a mineral higher than nuclear dusts off the ground. Owned life's healing.

And only men could have caused it. Removal. The theme the past at position cooled highest began it.

Evolution says men isn't mechanical nor reactive.

As teaching said life biology returns healed when earths cloud mass amount re emerges above. Blocking out the sun.

Jesus with cloud Satan angels is what he said the protection became. Of biology from the burning flame in space sun conditions.

Trying to make space be man's mechanical laws is how man destroyed all origin life. Then attacked it twice. As space laws aren't his mechanical terms.

As his life never learns. Human greed is exact and already chosen. The lifestyle.

Lifestyle precedes his chosen act of destruction by excuse God does it to you. I'm innocent. As he knows science doesn't own mass of creation.

He only cons you to believe man is in control and owns all things. Expressed as just a man but said via lifestyle.

It's always been his own con.

 

[rational experiences]

Science theoried as space to be his laws mechanics.

By human man.

Is the universe mechanics?

No.

Did he transcend metals cold from hot melt history via dusts. That the sun had converted a very long time ago.

So flooding plus void vacuum took away sacrificed attack of God the earth? By the sun reason of the state to convert...mechanics.

Yes.

No abiogenisis.

Cooling of heated water by burning gases. Original amount of microbes life in water used for healthy cells it's food with water minerals was first present.

Off the ground higher dust a mineral higher than nuclear dusts off the ground. Owned life's healing.

And only men could have caused it. Removal. The theme the past at position cooled highest began it.

Evolution says men isn't mechanical nor reactive.

As teaching said life biology returns healed when earths cloud mass amount re emerges above. Blocking out the sun.

Jesus with cloud Satan angels is what he said the protection became. Of biology from the burning flame in space sun conditions.

Trying to make space be man's mechanical laws is how man destroyed all origin life. Then attacked it twice. As space laws aren't his mechanical terms.

As his life never learns. Human greed is exact and already chosen. The lifestyle.

Lifestyle precedes his chosen act of destruction by excuse God does it to you. I'm innocent. As he knows science doesn't own mass of creation.

He only cons you to believe man is in control and owns all things. Expressed as just a man but said via lifestyle.

It's always been his own con.

A human conscious example.

Lost mind everyone sick losing genetic health.

If I blow you up as my inventive man built explosion God will reward me with sex with virgins in heavens.

Reality consciousness advice says sex with virgins is in life natural bio. Bio is losing its DNA given by sex. Told by heavens feedback as visionary advice. As men by invention are blowing up earths mass.

I'm doing it for God.

Is the theist man's advice.

Men do it themselves first....as God shows them...as it's caused secondary in heavens mass as advice.

Loss of living DNA by sex.

Always involves phenomena as man not the sun owning natural light with earth isn't reacting.

Man blames gods wisdom about dusts above reacting. Yet it's natural law. Was taken away historic once.

Men of science re activated it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought that this would be a good thread to post this video:

Some background information for you. James Tour, an actual PhD holding man that both teaches and works in chemistry is also an Abiogenesis denier. He got a bit infamous for this video that he did where he openly lied about Nobel laureate Jack Szostak. He got called out by a few people, one of them ProfessorDave, who was a professor of chemistry for a while before taking to YouTube to earn a living. That take down of his video must have chapped his , ahem, donkey quite badly because he made a video responding to it. And so it began. ProfessorDave responded in kind and upped the attack a bit. In the last round it looked like it was over. ProfesorDave interviewed people that work in the field. He quoted articles that showed that specific points of Tour's were incredibly wrong. So much so that it looked as if either Tour was lying or he was an idiot. He was lying again, just in case you were wondering. The burn appeared to be fatal.

And it was for quite a while. But when people are stupidly wrong sometimes it boils up in them. I call it "the stupid". Someone said something that proved you wrong, and even though all of the science was on the side of one's opponent "the stupid" takes over and forces the person to go back into the fight. Well, "the stupid" overpowered James Tour once again. I knew it was just a matter of time and ProfessorDave did not disappoint.

If anyone wants to discuss any of the errors of James Tour I am open to a discussion. Otherwise watch and enjoy.

 

[Brian2]

Isn't that the right way to process evidence? Why would I believe one of two or more possible explanations without evidence to rule one in and the others out? That's faith. That's a non sequitur fallacy - a belief that doesn't follow from what preceded it. That last choice to guess that one is correct is a leap of faith, and as you see, a logical fallacy.

I don't mind a leap of faith when I consider the evidence for the truth of the stories in a book to be good.
It is also a leap of faith to dismiss the stories of experiences with God.

What is verified evidence? What is unverified evidence?

I don't know but it made sense in the discussion I was having and from which you lifted it. In context it meant evidence that has been shown to be true. In context it was about Bible stories about. To you this is not evidence but to me it is because of fulfilled prophecies which speak to me about a God even if they do not speak to you about a God.

By authentic, do you mean of transhuman provenance - prophecies a human being could not be expected to make? You've been told why biblical prophecy is not that - why it fails to convince the critical thinker.

What a critical thinker things about the prophecies is not how I judge Biblical prophecies.

I agree, but see it see that as a feature, not a fault. Critical thinking and empiricism ground us to reality. If you want to understand it, you need to examine it open-mindedly with a certain skill set. Once one let's his imagination go, it's like a hot air balloon previously tethered to reality now free to float off into lands of imagination. Thats great if you're a writer of fiction, but not so great if you're a scientist.

You can't just choose a conclusion in science but in determining the existence of God and the veracity of the Bible we all choose a side, true or not. If we choose, "I'll wait for more evidence" it's the same as choosing not true as it.

Religion has no explanation for anything if by explanation we mean something demonstrably correct. Your answer is to propose a deity and a life force, but you can't demonstrate either nor the need for either. Scientists have been more than happy to consider the evidence for intelligent design. Do you have any? The ID program couldn't produce any. It offered five biological systems as irreducibly complex, but they were shown to be wrong in every case over a decade ago, which must be why you don't hear much from them any more.

That's nice of ID to offer 5 biological systems as irreducibly complex. I heard something about the flagellum motor that evidence points to it not having started as with a simpler design. That may have been old information however, or the decade ago information may be old information.
We do not know what life is and can't really just assume it is chemical based even if a lot of evidence points that way.

Nope. That has been explicitly contradicted here. Will you ever stop making this false claim? Not one skeptic here has said that abiogenesis has been confirmed. It's probably correct that it occurred naturalistically simply because any naturalistic hypothesis is more likely than one that invokes the supernatural to modify nature when none is needed (parsimony). Still, the skeptic's mind is open to that possibility if ever any evidence is uncovered that suggests its likelihood.

A naturalistic hypothesis is not more likely.
The skeptical mind is closed to the possibility of the supernatural until evidence of an undetectable God is found. That means that you have already made up your mind about abiogenesis, and others here have indicated that abiogenesis does not have to actually find that abiogenesis is true before they believe it is true.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that intention existed anywhere prior to the advent of abiogenesis and biological and psychological evolution. If there was no mind before that, there was no intention.

How do you explain the existence of the god you believe exists? You don't, do you? That god must exist by chance as well by your reckoning. I wouldn't argue. If one exists, it's just luck or chance (I prefer the word unintended) that that was even possible, let alone actual.

Careful, we don't know critically if there was mind before animals evolved.
Yes I guess God would exist by chance also. It certain is good luck for us that God existed.

So your requirement for abiogenesis is that it repeat itself naturalistically without intelligent oversight so that man can observe that happening? Anything else means we need a god to explain the existence of life? That's not how it works. That's not what observation and repeatability mean in science. Consider forensic science used to solve a murder. It is not necessary to observe the murder or repeat it to solve it. It is necessary that the forensic evidence be observable and the test results on it repeatable.

Science would need to produce artificial life for abiogenesis to be shown to be true imo otherwise it would be just. "It is theoretically possible to be true that life forms could come together naturally, but we don't know if they would be alive".

I can't imagine assuming that there is a supernatural realm, at least not since I learned critical thinking.

Critical thinking does however assume that there is no supernatural realm.

That's tautologically correct. If spirit exists, that does not mean that spirit does not exist. It actually means the opposite. Why do you think that's important or useful?

Brian2 said: If spirit exists and science cannot detect it then that does not mean that spirit does not exist.

That is important and useful because atheists/skeptics assume that spirit does not exist because science cannot detect it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't mind a leap of faith when I consider the evidence for the truth of the stories in a book to be good.

I always mind a leap of faith. If the evidence in support of a claim is good enough to justify that claim, then it can be believed. If not, it should not be believed. If a leap of faith is required to believe it, it should not be believed.

It is also a leap of faith to dismiss the stories of experiences with God.

Only if there is sufficient evidence to justify belief in those stories, without which it is a leap of faith to accept them.

You can't just choose a conclusion in science but in determining the existence of God and the veracity of the Bible we all choose a side, true or not. If we choose, "I'll wait for more evidence" it's the same as choosing not true as it.

Agreed. There are three belief positions - positive belief, negative belief, and agnosticism - but only two ways to live - as if one believes and as if one does not.

We do not know what life is and can't really just assume it is chemical based even if a lot of evidence points that way.

Why not? What advantage or benefit do we gain by positing a life force separate from the ability of matter to arrange itself into living systems through largely electrostatic means? How about positing two or three life forces being necessary? It adds nothing to our understanding and has no supporting evidence, but hey, why not? According to you, we can't just assume one life force, so maybe we need to seriously consider three. Or seven.

A naturalistic hypothesis is not more likely.

The simplest narrative that accounts for all observed phenomena is the more likely to be correct than one with more requirements. They are just unnecessary complexity that adds no explanatory or predictive power.

The skeptical mind is closed to the possibility of the supernatural until evidence of an undetectable God is found.

Yes. You say that like it's a bad thing. The idea that an idea shouldn't be believed absent sufficient supporting evidence - skepticism - is one of the most profound and useful in human history.

others here have indicated that abiogenesis does not have to actually find that abiogenesis is true before they believe it is true.

OK, but why is that important?

It certain is good luck for us that God existed.

Your original comment was, "Everything happens by chance for atheists when I look at the big picture." Presumably, you disapproved of such a viewpoint, because you believe that a god was necessary, that chance alone can't explain observable reality. Now you tell me that this god exists by chance (or do you think otherwise?) and how lucky it is for us that that is the case. Imagine how lucky it feels not only that gods are possible, that it got to be one. This is special pleading - having one standard for gods and another for everything else. One should reject the notion that universes like ours can exist without an intelligent designer (by "chance") but excuse the intelligent designer from the same requirement for no reason.

Science would need to produce artificial life for abiogenesis to be shown to be true

That wouldn't be enough. That would only demonstrate that it is possible, not that it actually occurred. I don't see how we can make a case for a specific pathway without some record of the anatomy and biochemistry of the first replicators.

Critical thinking does however assume that there is no supernatural realm.

Its advocates offer no clear description of what it is they claim the supernatural is, so a form of ignosticism is appropriate here: "the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition." The same is true for the supernatural. I've suggested to you in the past that it's not a good idea to keep posting what you think atheists believe and getting it wrong, and that you pay closer attention to the corrections such as mine so that you can accurately reproduce what atheist are actually telling you.

atheists/skeptics assume that spirit does not exist because science cannot detect it.

And there it is again - you speaking for skeptics but getting it wrong. No, that is incorrect, and I have explicitly corrected you on this in the past, but is there any value in me correcting it again? Are you capable of correcting it to what I said in place of that? You should be able to do so by now given how many such corrections there have been to date, but I'd bet the farm that you can't, because I also believe that you never look at them or think about them, since the words appear to have no impact on your subsequent posting.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you reject all evidence for God as being evidence for God. I suppose you have to do that because just one bit of reasonable evidence for God is pretty much proof of God.
But trans-dimensional constructor mice is no more than something I can wave my hand at and it will disappear.

As far as I'm concerned, God and trans-dimensional constructor mice have the same amount of evidence supporting them.