Agreed. And that is why discussions with atheists are basically pointless. They ask for evidence but the only acceptable evidence is evidence which reinforces their own opinions, except they don't have opinions because they don't have beliefs on the matter.
Arguing with atheists is pointless because they don't recognize that not believing something isn't a belief?
That's got nothing to do with atheism. It's just how logic works.
Acceptable evidence to me is evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim. The type of evidence I ask for when it comes to gods, is the exact same type of evidence I ask for to demonstrate the veracity of any claim whatsoever. Which is pretty much how everyone goes about it, when it comes to regular claims, but believers throw that out the window for some reason and claim that that type of evidence doesn't work for god(s) and that we have to throw everything we know about evidence out the window and just believe in old fables anyway. Because ... faith.
I say you have an established belief about the existence of God. You say no I don't because I don't have a belief in God. I give you demonstrated evidence of how your representational language indicates you do have some sort of established belief.
I used to, back when I was a believer.
Consider, by engaging at all in a debate concerning the issue you've of necessity established a belief. If not then you can't engage at all with theistic beliefs let alone make comments on the existence of "demons". How can an atheist state that they make no claims and have no belief upon which to stand concerning the issues and yet engage in debate? That's absurd. Atheists can't even claim there is no evidence if, as you say, atheists have no belief upon which to analyze any evidence - or lack thereof - by. And of course you've stated atheists make no claims so they couldn't even make the claim that no evidence has been presented. Your own rhetoric is irrational.
Do you believe in leprechauns? Fairies? Why or why not.
This atheist doesn't make god claims. An atheist claiming "god doesn't exist" is making a claim, but the person who doesn't believe, isn't making a claim. I am rejecting the claims I've been given that god(s) exist because it doesn't convince me that god(s) exist. I'm also an aleprechanist, and an abigfootist.
You give no counter arguments except for an unreasonable emotional condemnation of the discussion.
Yeah, sorry I don't want to have discussions about things I'm not interested in. Terrible, I know.
That is unwarranted dismissal of my arguments without giving reason and is disrespectful and offensive. It would seem as if you simply dismiss those arguments which oppose your opinions that you find it hard to rebut.
I respond in kind. So if you think I've been disrespectful and defensive, well ....
I'm presuming your aware of the fact that human DNA isn't just a random combination of amino acids reacting to its environment in a fortuitously beneficial way for creating a human being. It is actually a remarkable system of information storage used by other entities in order for them to do their proper jobs in creating that human being. It is a code if you will for storing the blueprints of human existence.
"the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like" Richard Dawkins.
"DNA is like a computer program." Bill Gates
Biotechnology specialist Leroy Hood describes DNA similarly..."digital code."
DNA's coding isn't stand alone though...it requires a complex information-transmission and processing system and all geared towards functionally specified information use. Even experts in the field of biotechnology admit these systems give a remarkable "appearance" of design. And as we all know, nature doesn't design. But appearance isn't enough, one must analyze the actual information content in these systems, how they work, what information they contain and how it is used.
DNA isn't just present in humans and doesn't just "make" humans. It's present in all living things on earth.
It's only a code in the metaphorical sense, not in the literal sense.
Why does science find it so difficult to "naturally" explain the origin of the information in DNA and other biomacromolecules in living cells?
It doesn't.
Long story...very abbreviated,
Enter MIT scientist Claude Shannon developer of modern information theory...
States: The amount of information is equated with the amount of uncertainty that was reduced by a series of symbols or characters. The amount of information conveyed by an event or sequence of characters is inversely proportional to the probability of its occurrence.
In Shannon's theory, the more improbable an event or sequence, the more uncertainty it eliminates and thus the more information it conveys.
This kind of mathematical formulism - Shannon information - cannot detect whether a sequence of symbols conveyed meaning or performed a communication function - functional or specified information. Important to note.
The "sequence of symbols" in DNA are made up by us. The letters assigned to them are made up by humans to help us make sense of it.
It sounds like these people are talking about language, which DNA is
not.
But it turns out DNA contains both Shannon information - improbability information - AND specificity information or specified complexity.
"Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid [i.e., in the DNA] or of amino-acid residues in the protein." Francis Crick
Ah, so you're an intelligent design proponent, I take it? You're certainly using their language.
Hence the quotes above about DNA being like a computer code.
It's "like" a computer code, metaphorically speaking. Literally speaking, it is not.
Now I know we all like probability...its what makes the world go round har, har. For instance all our scientific "laws" are based on probabilities. Take gravity, its conceivable (allowed by possibility) that gravity could change the force it applies to matter tomorrow. However given our experiences, experiments etc. it is not a probably actionable possibility. No one in their right mind is going to jump off a building tomorrow thinking that at that precise time the force of gravity will become 1/100 of what it was and they will safely float down to the ground.
So, what is the probability that DNA would naturally accumulate not only the Shannon information but also specified complexity information?
Physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues calculated, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD University of Cambridge calculated that for even a single functional protein or corresponding functional gene to happen by chance alone..."of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment stands at no better than a "vanishing small" 1 chance in 10^164, an inconceivably small probability."
Sorry, what does any of this have to do with the (non)existence of demons?
And why and how does any of this point to the existence of some god(s)?
This is just quote mining and not really deserving of a response, sorry. Quote mining is a dishonest debate strategy that I'm not interested in.
Like jumping off that building and expecting gravity to change at that precise moment.
Keep in mind a single cell has not one but hundreds of specialized proteins.
There's more to the argument but that's the gist of it.
The universal constants aren't simply observations. They give specific information about how the universe works and that specificity which gives us the universe we have is collectively informationally related to probability like the DNA scenario above. Its eyebrow raising.
These "universal constants" are they way humans describe what is going on around us. They are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They are are observations and measurements of the world around us.
Just been my experience and projected opinion. Right or wrong.
A point I was trying to make was that there is no universally demonstrable evidence which because of the nature of the issues we are discussing points to a known cause. The cause remains unknown but hypothesized with evidence such as that presented above and since it currently remains unknown, the evidence is interpretably corelated. Anyone who doesn't want to believe wont because there remains a factor of faith.
Nobody likes to be critiqued. But perhaps it would be more productive to correct the other persons opinion in such cases and present demonstrable reasons why they are wrong. Hmmm, is that possible? Demonstrate on here how you truly feel? Or is that something we would have to take on faith that it is a true representation of reality?
Again, what is good enough evidence? Think about all the things you take for granted daily, accepting as true based on the most meager evidence or even total lack of personal evidential experience. From rumors about workmates to assumptions about medicines and the existence of molecules. What if the evidence presented is evidence we can't personally analyze?
Good evidence is evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the claim in some independently verifiable way.
I don't believe rumours about workmates. Or medicine. Or anything else.
If the evidence presented is something we can't personally analyze and isn't independently verifiable, why should we accept it? Why would you?
Faith, you either have it or you don't. It begins in subjective feeling that may end in objective rejection. It seems you can't think your way into having faith but you certainly can think your way out of it which by itself isn't evidence that makes your faith wrong.
Faith is useless to me. Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have good evidence. Otherwise they'd give the evidence. So faith is not a reliable pathway to truth and I have no use for it. I have no idea why anyone believes on faith.
. Really sad.
