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

[Brian2]

No it didn't You need to reread your Bible.

Well I suppose that God did say things like, "Let the earth bring forth plants". That could be seen as life coming from the ground I suppose.

And you are mistaken on one more point. Creation by God is magic as laid out in the Bible. Just because God did it does not mean that it is not magic.

Well yes it is stuff that we have no idea about just like other miracles of God but I don't mind that as much as you.
Consciousness from atoms could be seen as magic also.

As to why we don't see life anywhere else, where have we been? We have not been to other star systems so how can you even begin to say that there is no life elsewhere? All we can say is "We don't know, but it is highly probable".

True, there's billions of years of exploring there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's just that this is how God has divided things up in Genesis and has said what He has done specifically. It is the Bible that has done it imo and for me that is God speaking to us.

That may be your opinion, but can you support your beliefs rationally? For example you have to know that there was no flood of Noah. There was no event that would have accomplished what the mythical story was supposed to do. We know that there never were just two people. Or that people lived hundreds of years. There are all sorts of stories in Genesis that are pure myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I suppose that God did say things like, "Let the earth bring forth plants". That could be seen as life coming from the ground I suppose.



Well yes it is stuff that we have no idea about just like other miracles of God but I don't mind that as much as you.
Consciousness from atoms could be seen as magic also.



True, there's billions of years of exploring there.

In the sense that we are using the word God would not qualify as being alive. There was no life and then there was. That means even according to the myths God magically made life from nonlife. We do have evidence for a natural process we do not have any for the claims that God did it.


Also you need to stop conflating what seems to make sense to you with what makes sense. You are far too ready when it comes to any science that you do not understand to simply say "that's too hard. I guess God did it". That is God of the Gaps reasoning. And the problem with that is when others answer the questions that you did not understand your version of God get's smaller and smaller. He is forced into the every shrinking gaps in our knowledge until he does not exist any longer.

 

[Polymath257]

God did it. If we kill ourselves we will find out for sure. Why do you want scientific tests for the spiritual when science cannot test the spiritual, just as science cannot say for sure what life is and if things were created or just happened.

Sorry, but Goddidit is simply NOT an explanation. It gives no details about *how* Goddidit. It does allow any testing about the process or any actual knowledge about it.

It is, in actuality, a non-explanation. It stops debate but gives no actual information.

For example, suppose I look at the pyramids in Egypt and ask how they got built. You answer that the ancient Egyptians did it. That doesn't answer the question. It says who, but not how.

Why is it that science cannot test the spiritual? be specific about why the scientific method cannot be used on spiritual questions.

I presume you mean "naturalistic methodology".
Unless science knows what that is then there is no point having that as part of it's philosophy.

It isn't. The scientific method is. And that requires all hypotheses to be testable. No assumption of 'natural' is required. In fact, the term 'natural' is best *defined* as those things that can be tested and thereby knowledge can be developed about.

So you demonstrate scientism and expect me to follow along for you amusement as if it is the only way to determine the truth of propositions.

Yes, I absolutely require that any ideas be testable. Taking things on faith is an evil in my view.

 

[Polymath257]

I gave my alternative speculation and I would say it is supported in the God of the gaps idea when it comes to where the date in genes came from. If people believe the naturalistic approach then that is a faith belief as much as the God answer. It is the science of the gaps answer.

No, at best it is *consistent* with your God of the gaps. But that doesn't mean it *supports* or is *evidence* of such.

The problem with Goddidit is that we can make that fit *any* event we detect. We just say that Goddidit that way instead of the other way.

And that is precisely why Goddidit is not an explanation AT ALL. To be an explanation for a phenomenon, it has to be inconsistent with the negation of that phenomenon (or at least make the negation less likely). And that is never the case with Goddidit.

 

[gnostic]

Well I suppose that God did say things like, "Let the earth bring forth plants". That could be seen as life coming from the ground I suppose.

That’s not an explanation, it is merely a claim with the “God did it” included.

The “God did it” is also not explanation.

Explanations required to explain -

• WHAT the phenomena is?
• HOW the phenomena work?
• WHAT possible applications there are if you are able to answer the 1st two questions?
• HOW you would implement the applications?

The proposed explanations would have to be also FALSIFIABLE, meaning there must be some ways TO TEST the explanations.

And the only ways to test, is through observations of the EVIDENCE or observations through EXPERIMENTS.

The observations aren’t just “seeing” the evidence with one’s own eyes.

Observations can also detection of some things that cannot be seen, by using detection devices or instruments, eg EM receiver that can detect radio signals, or optical or radio telescopes to observe or record distant stars, galaxies, pulsars, etc, microscopes to aid in seeing microscopic objects, etc

Some observational devices not only detect, but they may have multiple functions that are just essential as detection, eg -

• the ability to qualify the number of evidence,
• the ability to measure,
• the ability to test (eg comparison tests, to analyze specific signatures of the phenomena, etc).

You cannot observe, measure or test God.

You cannot observe, measure or test supernatural events, like miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.

The fact that you believe that god is the agency to create nature or to create life, make your claim UNFALSIFIABLE (untestable).

Such claim that “God did it”, isn’t an explanation at all. It is an assertion without any mean to test it.

 

[Brian2]

That may be your opinion, but can you support your beliefs rationally? For example you have to know that there was no flood of Noah. There was no event that would have accomplished what the mythical story was supposed to do. We know that there never were just two people. Or that people lived hundreds of years. There are all sorts of stories in Genesis that are pure myth.

We know what God felt like doing, getting rid of all of humanity. We know that He decided not to do that and kept Noah and family in that land and elsewhere where local floods may also have happened, it seems that others survived also.
I don't think it is known that humans did not live much longer lives at one stage.
Genetics gives bottlenecks in human history where populations were small.
It looks like there is a scientific possibility for Adam and Eve but I imagine science has a way to go in this research.
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

 

[Brian2]

In the sense that we are using the word God would not qualify as being alive. There was no life and then there was. That means even according to the myths God magically made life from nonlife. We do have evidence for a natural process we do not have any for the claims that God did it.

But we cannot say it is just natural processes without religious faith in science as the only way,,,,,,,,,,,,,, materialism.

Also you need to stop conflating what seems to make sense to you with what makes sense. You are far too ready when it comes to any science that you do not understand to simply say "that's too hard. I guess God did it". That is God of the Gaps reasoning. And the problem with that is when others answer the questions that you did not understand your version of God get's smaller and smaller. He is forced into the every shrinking gaps in our knowledge until he does not exist any longer.

God has been getting smaller and smaller for some time now if the views of some are correct and knowing the mechanics of a process completely eliminates God from having anything to do with it. But it doesn't because God created things to work in a certain way and that is what God has said, not that He throws each bolt of lightning.
Now even in the creation stuff, where humans cannot say what happened without faith either in God or in materialism, science comes up with possibilities (science of the gaps) and says there is evidence for those possibilities therefore they are better possibilities. But that is scientism and empiricism and starts off with a denial of the possibility that God did it. It's like saying, "We don't know what happened but we know it was not God".
So let me know when humans go back in time to see what happened and then tell me God did not do it if that is the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know what God felt like doing, getting rid of all of humanity. We know that He decided not to do that and kept Noah and family in that land and elsewhere where local floods may also have happened, it seems that others survived also.
I don't think it is known that humans did not live much longer lives at one stage.
Genetics gives bottlenecks in human history where populations were small.
It looks like there is a scientific possibility for Adam and Eve but I imagine science has a way to go in this research.
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

You are misusing the term "know".

And yes, Genetics gives bottlenecks to the human population. Do you know how small that they were? The flood myth says that 8 survived. How many humans and now long ago for our bottlenecks.

Also just because we have a Y-Chromosome Adam and a Mitochondrial Eve does not support the Bible myth. The two people almost certainly did not know each other. They are merely two people that we can trace our descent to. When they existed there were many many humans and they probably lived thousands of years apart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But we cannot say it is just natural processes without religious faith in science as the only way,,,,,,,,,,,,,, materialism.

And now you are making the mistake of assuming that because you rely on faith that others do too. We only have evidence for natural processes. If your beliefs were true there could be observations that do not even begin to have a natural explanation. But we find the opposite to be true. The more we study the past the more we see only natural events.

God has been getting smaller and smaller for some time now if the views of some are correct and knowing the mechanics of a process completely eliminates God from having anything to do with it. But it doesn't because God created things to work in a certain way and that is what God has said, not that He throws each bolt of lightning.
Now even in the creation stuff, where humans cannot say what happened without faith either in God or in materialism, science comes up with possibilities (science of the gaps) and says there is evidence for those possibilities therefore they are better possibilities. But that is scientism and empiricism and starts off with a denial of the possibility that God did it. It's like saying, "We don't know what happened but we know it was not God".
So let me know when humans go back in time to see what happened and then tell me God did not do it if that is the case.

Please, if you want an answer drop the false claims. Don't assume that others have the same flaws that you do. That is not proper.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, but Goddidit is simply NOT an explanation. It gives no details about *how* Goddidit. It does allow any testing about the process or any actual knowledge about it.

It is, in actuality, a non-explanation. It stops debate but gives no actual information.

For example, suppose I look at the pyramids in Egypt and ask how they got built. You answer that the ancient Egyptians did it. That doesn't answer the question. It says who, but not how.

Why is it that science cannot test the spiritual? be specific about why the scientific method cannot be used on spiritual questions.

If used properly then science can be used to answer questions about God and scriptures etc but science cannot test things that it cannot find (spirit, God) This does not mean that God and/or spirit does not exist however unless scientism is your belief.

Yes, I absolutely require that any ideas be testable. Taking things on faith is an evil in my view.

You say that while having faith in the scientific method as the only way to find out about reality.
I find it amazing that atheists don't like the term scientism applied to them even when it is undeniable that is what should be denied.
It is a crap word however and believing in scientism does not mean you are a scientist.

 

[Brian2]

No, at best it is *consistent* with your God of the gaps. But that doesn't mean it *supports* or is *evidence* of such.

The problem with Goddidit is that we can make that fit *any* event we detect. We just say that Goddidit that way instead of the other way.

And that is precisely why Goddidit is not an explanation AT ALL. To be an explanation for a phenomenon, it has to be inconsistent with the negation of that phenomenon (or at least make the negation less likely). And that is never the case with Goddidit.

With the Bible as a go to book we cannot slip God in anywhere as an answer unless it is something God said that He did. We usually don't know how God is meant to have do it, but the belief is that God did it.
So maybe the data in genes just came there naturally so that they worked as genes right from the start. But it is not science to say that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If used properly then science can be used to answer questions about God and scriptures etc but science cannot test things that it cannot find (spirit, God) This does not mean that God and/or spirit does not exist however unless scientism is your belief.



You say that while having faith in the scientific method as the only way to find out about reality.
I find it amazing that atheists don't like the term scientism applied to them even when it is undeniable that is what should be denied.
It is a crap word however and believing in scientism does not mean you are a scientist.

No, he does not "have faith". Faith is an irrational belief. One believes using faith when one is lacking sufficient evidence for a rational belief.

Now since you do not understand much in the way of the sciences it may appear to you that others rely on faith, but I can assure you that that is not the case.

 

[Brian2]

You cannot observe, measure or test God.

You cannot observe, measure or test supernatural events, like miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.

The fact that you believe that god is the agency to create nature or to create life, make your claim UNFALSIFIABLE (untestable).

Such claim that “God did it”, isn’t an explanation at all. It is an assertion without any mean to test it.

True, and that is a divide between theology and science.
But having no tests for God or if God did something does not mean that God does not exist or that God did not do things.
If you knew what to test for and how to do that and got no result then you might be able to say that God does not exist etc, but God is just completely outside the realm of scientific investigation. It is a matter of faith to believe in Him and a matter of faith to deny that He exists.

 

[F1fan]

We know what God felt like doing, getting rid of all of humanity.

No we don't. You are interpreting an ancient myth as if it was factual. It isn't. Nothing in the Genesis stories can be supported by facts or reason.

The pathetic thing about the Noah story being interpreted literally is that it suggests the God is a screwup. It couldn't create decent humans, So what does the God do? Has to drown most of them and start over. But damn, even this fails. What does God do next? Rapes a woman to create a mortal sn so he can have him executed as a sacrifice to himself for the sins of the people he himself created.

That all makes sense?

We know that He decided not to do that and kept Noah and family in that land and elsewhere where local floods may also have happened, it seems that others survived also.

Others survived? That's not in the Bible. If you are going to cite the Bible, stick to what the Bible says. Or throw it all out if you are going to add content to the stories yourself, because what's the point?

I don't think it is known that humans did not live much longer lives at one stage.

Yes we do. Longevity has increased as sanitation and medicines have been developed.

Genetics gives bottlenecks in human history where populations were small.
It looks like there is a scientific possibility for Adam and Eve but I imagine science has a way to go in this research.
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

It's not what a believer thinks it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, and that is a divide between theology and science.
But having no tests for God or if God did something does not mean that God does not exist or that God did not do things.
If you knew what to test for and how to do that and got no result then you might be able to say that God does not exist etc, but God is just completely outside the realm of scientific investigation. It is a matter of faith to believe in Him and a matter of faith to deny that He exists.

Which means that you just said that most atheists do not rely in faith.

You might want to try to learn what you are arguing against.

 

[Polymath257]

If used properly then science can be used to answer questions about God and scriptures etc but science cannot test things that it cannot find (spirit, God) This does not mean that God and/or spirit does not exist however unless scientism is your belief.

But why would there be any reason to think that a God or spirits exist, especially those of any particular theology unless there is verifiable ev idence for them? and if there is such evidence, then science can detect them.

You say that while having faith in the scientific method as the only way to find out about reality.
I find it amazing that atheists don't like the term scientism applied to them even when it is undeniable that is what should be denied.
It is a crap word however and believing in scientism does not mean you are a scientist.

Well, I had understood that the word 'scientism' means the belief that science can answer all the important questions. I do not believe that.

For example, science cannot answer questions of ethics. It can *inform* such questions, but it cannot answer them. To answer ethics questions, you need a value system: to figure out what things are important and what are not, relative to each other. Science simply cannot answer those questions. Science can answer questions of what the results of different actions would be. But science cannot say which action should be done (the 'is'-'ought' distinction).

And I don't think that anyone denies that ethical questions are important.

Science also cannot answer questions of aesthetics. Which paintings are good art is not a scientific question. Which literature is good is not a scientific question. Matters of taste are also not scientific questions.

But, again, all of these are important questions, both socially and personally.

What science can answer is questions of 'is' and 'how'. It can establish what exists and how it works. Science can answer how things come about and the fundamental laws for such.

Those questions are the proper role of science. And questions of the existence or non-existence of spirits is right in line with those strengths. And the answer is that there is currently no evidence that they exist.

So, no, I do not hold to scientism in the sence that I believe that all important questions can be answered by science. But I *do* believe that all questions about what exists can be.

 

[Polymath257]

With the Bible as a go to book we cannot slip God in anywhere as an answer unless it is something God said that He did. We usually don't know how God is meant to have do it, but the belief is that God did it.
So maybe the data in genes just came there naturally so that they worked as genes right from the start. But it is not science to say that.

But why believe the Bible as opposed to the Quran? Or the Bagavad-Gita?

For that matter, why believe one particular interpretation of the Bible as opposed to another?

You claim first that spirits exist and then jump to a particular God as described in a particular text exists. That is quite a leap.

Let's first deal with the properties of the spiritual and how we can go about finding out those properties in a reliable way. THEN we can see whether the Bible is a reliable source on such matters.

 

[Polymath257]

True, and that is a divide between theology and science.
But having no tests for God or if God did something does not mean that God does not exist or that God did not do things.

But it does mean there is no *reason* to believe God exists and that anything 'He' does cannot be detected. Which makes 'His' actions irrelevant.

If you knew what to test for and how to do that and got no result then you might be able to say that God does not exist etc, but God is just completely outside the realm of scientific investigation. It is a matter of faith to believe in Him and a matter of faith to deny that He exists.

I disagree. If God interacts with the 'natural world' (or, for that matter, if any 'spiritual being' does), then that interaction would be detectable and that would be an indirect detection of the spiritual.

And if the interaction has no detectable effects, then it is irrelevant to any explanation of anything we can see.

 

[shunyadragon]

What you said sounds right, however just because certain chemical reactions etc can happen to produce certain results, that does not mean that they did happen millions of years ago. It might be that they are a possible answer but it is not certain and not testable or falsifiable etc.
If we have no reason to think things happened any other way we are probably going to accept it, at least provisionally. If we have a reason to think it may not have happened that way (as in I might believe God said that He did a certain thing and science says that it happened another way) then I might choose to go with the metaphysical answer and see it as requiring as much faith as someone who goes with a naturalistic science answer.
Different believers draw lines in different places and some just go along with anything that science says with the belief that God did it that way. I'm sort of like that, and don't jump up and down about scientific answers until I think I need to, for the sake of my faith.

The above represents a terrible lack of understanding of how nature and Natural Laws work as observed and falsified by scientific methods with a heavy dose of the falsy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

Chemical reactions DO happen now and millions or billions of years ago within a possible range of combinations. Science can and does falsify this repeatedly. All the cause-and-effect events observed in the cosmic, geologic record, and the history of life fall within a predictable range of outcomes. The environment determines the outcome of the abiogenesis and evolution of life within a limited range of outcomes. Nothing is random or by chance, in nature, whether Created by God or just came about naturally as determined by NAtural
Law and natural processes..