Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Apart from ignoring most of what I said like usual, i will again be patient and respond to most of your nonsense.
"That's your personal view that it is a hypothesis only."
It is not, no sane person has of yet said that evolution was the reason for the origin of life on earth as a fact.
You do not fall in that category of sane people.
This is just an other of your wishful thinking claims.
You just wish scientists claimed a fact to support your claim.
"the hypothesis has merit?"
I abstain from making a claim about history since I think there is not sufficient knowledge to make an evidence based claim that can withstand proper scrutiny.
What is there inside a black hole?
Same answer.
"I still take the theory of evolution as a fact."
Same as saying:
I still wish to be stupid and not learn from my mistakes.
Fact is something you can observe, can you travel back in time and observe it happen?
NO, so learn not to look incredibly stupid in public, please.
"some living things have adapted to threats in their environment."
That is evidence to support a hypothesis/theory, not a fact.
Even if evolution could explain the origin of life, it still may have happened in an other way.
You are claiming things about history, just showing a possible way of how it might have happened is not enough to validate that it went that way.
There is evidence that you can go home from work by bus.
That does not mean you went home by bus yesterday or the day before.
Very simple logic you seem to lack.
"trolling and you will report me."
Dare troll again and I will. I do not care how much you care or not, I care about honest discourse and you are disrupting that.
Not a threat but stating what I will do next time.
@ Travis
"Evolution is a scientific theory, not simply either a belief or just any old hypothesis."
There is a slight misunderstanding here.
I assume when u said Evolution you meant the Theory of evolution.
Evolution is a fact, not Just a scientific Theory either, it can be observed in a lab. It indeed happens.
The Theory of evolution relates to how life propagated in history= Theory of how it actually happened backed up by a lot of evidence to support it. It cannot be observed so it is not a fact but a scientific Theory that can only be applied on those things that there is evidence for.(for the others it assumed/hypothesis)
"As for the origin of life itself, that falls back into another field."
Agree but I think that clarification is needed.
Origin of life, there are some that try to use evolution as a hypothesis for it too. (eg: evolution of bacteria that came from asteroids and evolved/adapted here on earth to the current environment, thus shaping it accordingly) There is evidence for this too.
Abiogenesis is an other hypothesis that deals with life being created here on earth given the right conditions/environment.
Thus it makes the assumption that earth did have the right conditions for it to happen in history.
"There is a slight misunderstanding here.
I assume when u said Evolution you meant the Theory of evolution."
That is what Evolution is, the scientific theory that descent with modification can result in a multitude of species.
"Evolution is a fact, not Just a scientific Theory either, it can be observed in a lab. It indeed happens."
Well, sort of. Selective pressure and descent with modification has been observed in a lab, as has speciation, but the proposition that all existing species have a common ancestor cannot be. So parts of evolution have been confirmed in a lab setting, but as a whole, it isn't something that can be confirmed in that way. The rest has been proven in a different way, we infer what we should expect to find if the theory is accurate, and then go out and see if we can find it. Thankfully, it isn't very hard, as there is a wealth of scientific disciplines and fields that correlate and cross-confirm evolution beyond most peoples wildest dreams.
"The Theory of evolution relates to how life propagated in history= Theory of how it actually happened backed up by a lot of evidence to support it. It cannot be observed so it is not a fact but a scientific Theory that can only be applied on those things that there is evidence for.(for the others it assumed/hypothesis)"
We do not actually have to observe something to confirm its existence. Black holes have been confirmed through the study of what they effect, as they cannot be observed directly.
"Agree but I think that clarification is needed.
Origin of life, there are some that try to use evolution as a hypothesis for it too. (eg: evolution of bacteria that came from asteroids and evolved/adapted here on earth to the current environment, thus shaping it accordingly) There is evidence for this too."
That is one hypothesis, but it isn't gaining as much traction as abiogenesis, and has its own difficulties.
"Abiogenesis is an other hypothesis that deals with life being created here on earth given the right conditions/environment.
Thus it makes the assumption that earth did have the right conditions for it to happen in history."
Wasn't the conditions on the prebiotic Earth already confirmed, like years ago?
"There is a slight misunderstanding here.
I assume when u said Evolution you meant the Theory of evolution."
"That is what Evolution is, the scientific theory that descent with modification can result in a multitude of species. "
Travis Evolution means both a fact and a theory, it all depends in what context you are putting the word.
In my argument with the discussion about facts it meant the fact.
If you are referring to the theory you should use the theory of evolution to avoid misunderstandings.
The theory of evolution = Evolution by natural selection started by Charles Darwin in his paper On the Origin of Species.
Basically it is the claim "that descent with modification can result in a multitude of species. "
It is a fact because it has been confirmed that it happens at the very least to some species by observation.
"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances."
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
It remains a well established Scientific Theory for most species though.
"Wasn't the conditions on the prebiotic Earth already confirmed, like years ago?"
"The transition from complex organic molecules to living cells could have occurred in several environments. Small, warm ponds are one possibility, but recent work has suggested that deep-sea hydrothermal vents, such as those found along mid-ocean spreading centers today, may have been the cradle of Earth's life. These environments contain the chemicals and the source of energy needed to synthesize more complex organic structures. Although scientists have not succeeded in creating life from organic molecules in the laboratory, they have reproduced many of the intermediate steps."
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/archean3.html
Nope, we still do not know to this day, how did the Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes appear/evolve on this planet.
There are bunch of hypothesis but until they manage to reproduce it in a lab, they still cannot make it a Scientific Theory.
Even worse claim that it happened that way in history.
http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/readings/giard.htm
How Prokaryote and Eukaryotes came to be on earth is still disputed.
Until we do, we cannot be arrogant and claim that the conditions were met for their creation.
They could have arrived from an asteroid for all we know like water did.
I am not saying that it would not have created the conditions for life eventually, but did it happen that way on this planet in history or did it get a boost from another asteroid?
Until we know more, we have to be scientific and not jump to conclusions.
EDIT:
The bacteria coming from an asteroid is not a mere speculation, it is more likely then the hypothesis that it grew on it's own on this planet considering that we already found 2 asteroids that had bacteria in them:
https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Bacterial_Fossils_in_Meteorites
Double post mistake
Kataclismic,
Note to whoever disagreed with Kataclismic. I didn't personally attack Travis at all. Quite the contrary, Travis succumbed to crude and angry language. But it doesn't bother me.
I'd like to encourage communication and confrontation in a civil manner.
My underlying point has been there is no scientific foundation of certitudes to prove the atheist world view, and atheists need not be worried about it. Once you accept your view is couched in unprovable assumptions, you will be free of trying to prove the unprovable, and free of your circular incoherent arguments.
Apollo,
I don't agree, once you start making opinions about another person's "world view" (which is actually something you created and in no way expresses Travis' views) in a derogatory way I see that as a personal attack. But that's just my opinion. Another one of my opinions is that nobody on this website is here to prove their views to you so I don't know why you insist we should.
You are the person that brings Creationism to the equation and everyone's waiting for you to prove your view because your opinion of our world view is wholly insignificant. Your world is a creation because you said so and my world is not because I didn't. There's no real argument there.
Apollo,
Just throwing this out there for your consideration:
The existence of Dawkins can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and confirmed through logical testing. Your god doesn't fit into these categories and therefore the argument does not apply. Show me how Dawkins' existence is somehow related to your god's existence and then maybe we can discuss it, until then it's rather pointless. But again, this is just my opinion, you obviously have a different one.
Just for clarity, the idea that "god created Richard Dawkins" cannot be illustrated independently, so it is not an acceptable argument. The idea that you don't see Richard or god is not an idea that indicates these two entities are related, regardless of how much you try to convince yourself, and to assume so is a fallacy.
But I'm just going to walk away for a moment... or maybe a month... or three...
Kataclismic,
Lets try and deal with this in smaller pieces. this piece is to try and identify a criteia for truth using a simple example, thus: -
I read a book called the Blind Watchmaker, It looks like an invention/creation to me. The book itself said the creator of it was Dawkins. Considering that, I believe Dawkins exists.
Question for you/anyone: Based on those things is it reasonable to believe he exists? If it isn't what has to happen for belief in his existence to be reasonable? The idea here is to try to identify a criterion for truth that would be acceptable to you or anyone. If we reach agreement on a criterion, then we might be able to move forward.
Apollo,
I haven't actually seen this book so your beliefs about it mean nothing to me. I'm sure Dawkins claims he wrote it and if someone else claims he wrote it (like the publisher) then I can assume he wrote it. I don't actually have to believe anything.
I read a book by Edgar Allen Poe. I'm quite sure he does NOT exist. He did at one time. Plato, Socrates and Einstein did too but I don't believe they exist either.
If you want to reshape the question in a method that can be derived at logically then do so, please, but this isn't it.
Apollo,
Your greatest error is trying to derive something logical from something completely illogical. Once you understand that we can move forward.
"Your greatest error is trying to derive something logical from something completely illogical."
Yep, he refuses to accept that there is a difference between opinion and belief.
Mixing them together like what he is doing makes him " trying to derive something logical from something completely illogical".
"An opinion is a judgment based on facts" while "a belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values."
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm
"Blind Watchmaker, It looks like an invention/creation to me."
"Question for you/anyone: Based on those things is it reasonable to believe he exists?"
Facts:
The author can be traced, contacted.
The book is published and the publisher can be traced.
The author fall within what is expected of a normal human being.
"Blind Watchmaker, It looks like an invention/creation to me."
It is an invention and it is created, however after observing the facts, is there any LOGICAL reason to doubt the existence of Dawkins(the author)?
The OPINION (since it is a logical conclusion) is that one can assume that he exists.
" I believe Dawkins exists."
No, belief deals with lack of reason for a conclusion.
You make the mistake of mixing Opinion with Belief here.
It is your OPINION that he exists, since it is derived from some logical facts.
(though if you choose to ignore the facts and close your eyes and believe it, then yes it would be your belief but that would mean that you are making an argument from ignorance)
Belief is based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values, which is not the current case if one researches the facts.
The bible inspired by god falls in that category.
No facts:
-The author cannot be traced, contacted.
-The book has an unknown publisher/s and none can be traced.
-The author does not fall within what is expected of a normal human being.
In this, one indeed cannot have an opinion that the bible is reliable, he must instead BELIEVE it is reliable.
As goes for the existence of the claimed author in the bible.
One indeed must BELIEVE he exists since there is no logical outcome(based on facts) that leads to an opinion on the matter.
Kataclismic,
Yes I see your point. Besides the book that looks like a creation, therefore it is reasonable to believe he created it, I'm assuming he didn't die.
Fucking seriously?
Do you need to know what caused the big bang to explain where babies come from?
If you do, I'd suggest you give the fuck up, because you are going to fill their heads full of shit.
Dear Apollo,
To further my education and understanding, could you please describe to me exactly what you mean when you use the term, “the creator.” Is “the creator” the laws of physics? A deity? An indescribable and unimaginable entity that we mortals cannot comprehend?
Please keep your sentences clear and concise because I’m just a scientist and not a philosopher.
Thank you, Alembé.
I believe the creator is a deity and the origin of the universe.
I don't claim to be able to prove it.
I don't see my belief as incompatible with any science.
I see atoms and living cells as invention like things, so it is coherent to believe in a creator.
I acknowledge that others are not required to see atoms and living cells as invention like things, or even if they do see them that way, they are not required to believe there is a creator deity.
Hopefully to clarify more:
The phrase "it is coherent to believe in a creator" is not a logically necessary conclusion. I am not arguing in a linear fashion. My reasoning is reciprocal reasoning.
Apollo, I must ask, and perhaps it might help with the Dawkin's question. How do you know that you exist?
Interesting question.
Ultimately, I assume I exist.
"shortest distance between two points was a straight line"
Geodesics. That is all I need to say.
Heh, another knee slapper from Apollo
To be fair, it is one of the most common misconceptions, as most people don't realize that it is not just the Earth, but space itself that can have a curve.
I was aware of curved space decades ago.
God does not have a you tube channel on the other hand we can see dawkins all over youtube......if watching a video does not convince you then u need to to tell why not....btw it doesn't matter dawkins ever existed or not....what matter is the what he talks about
Abeer,
My belief Dawkins exists is already justified. Why would I go to all the trouble of looking at youtube were there is all kinds of misinformation? Youtube is not the criterion for truth. I am using the coherence theory of truth.
Yea YouTube is not the criterion for truth.
But at least from YouTube you can actually see/hear the guy first person, no need to hared it from others.
The only unreliability is how unreliable you tube is.
The bible on the other hand has this huge list of unreliability:
(about who wrote the gospels)
-It is an opinion of an interpretation of a rumor.
-No one actually saw the guy(Jesus)
-No one actually heard this guy
-No one actually knows how he looks
-No one knows when he was born
-No one knows when he actually died
-No one knows where he died
-No one knows where he was buried
-No one saw the miracles happen that are writing the bible
-Too many forgeries before you came to read the final version
-Too many cutting before you came to read what was left
-Too many political involvement during history to decide which gospel was actually going to make it in the cannon
-Not one author
-Unknown author(s)
-Unknown number of authors
-No author biography
-No signature of authors
-No Publisher declaration
-No evidence to support the existence of this character
-All historians of this era are silent about Jesus except an unreliable christian supporter Josephus
-No known communication among churches/congregations before 80 ad which should be a lot of letters agreements/discussions etc...
-No eyewitness to the miracles that directly communicated to the authors
-More mistakes in the bible then there are words.
-More logical contradictions then there are mistakes.
-No other contemporary mention of the Jesus character(not just name) anywhere else.
-Miracles that define logic(eg zombie invasion of Jerusalem that no one saw)
-etc... the list goes on. Nearly endless pit.
Jeff,
The Bible is not a science book, it is mostly a story book, with some poetry, some symbolic writing, some letters, and a dash of history. Its not a rational book. God did not dictate the Bible to people. The Bible is mostly literature. It is obviously not inerrant. The Bible is not my paper Pope.
Would you critique Spielberg's movie ET as if it were a science documentary on aliens from out space? Its a story. The Bible is filled with stories. You can't critique the Bible, or ET, as if they were a rational science book. For example, you mentioned miracles. They are part of a story. In a story the author can put in anything he wants.
Fundamentalist Christians treat the Bible as if it were a rational book and as if the stories were history. They are mistaken. So tell them. You are telling all that stuff to the wrong person.
The topic of this thread doesn't rely on the Bible.
The topic is: 1. Biotic life looks like and invention. 2. So it is reasonable to believe in an inventor.
The reciprocal reasoning is similar to: 1. Dawkins book looks like a creation, so it is reasonable to believe 2. there is a creator of it.
I don't have to see Dawkins to believe he exists, nor does anyone.
So, I was challenged to prove biotic life is like an invention, and I offered a reference, a science book to meet that challenge.
I believe that God created all the natural processes that science studies. So science studies Gods work. Science isn't about if God exists or not, science is about how God's creation works. So it isn't possible for science to conflict with belief in God. The Bible is literature; it is not in conflict with Science, any more than the move ET is in conflict with science.
"I reject X"
Is not the same as:
"X doesn't exist"
Most atheists reject the proposition of a god, or creator, because of a total and utter failure of that claim to meet its burden of proof. We refuse to put faith in a proposition that does not appear to have any substantial evidence for it. Meanwhile, theists accept the proposition of a god, even a specific one, despite this failure. The two positions are not the same, as far as epistemology or reason is concerned, and they should not be treated equally.
It really boils down to a single principle:
A lack of evidence is a piss-poor reason to put faith in a proposition, and one of the best possible reasons not to.
Travis,
(This is also a response to your other post. )
Natural processes and abiogenesis.
Travis, every atheist I ran into told me its a fact that everything that happens in the universe is due to natural process. But now, when you claim abiogenesis is a hypothesis you necessarily imply that your fundamental view, namely, everything that happens in the universe is due to natural processes, is unproven. Yet you believe it.
1. Everything that happens in the universe happens due to natural processes.
2. Abiogenesis is a natural process by which a living organism arises from non-living mater.
If you take statement 1 as a fact, then statement 2 is a fact. That is so because 2 is subsumed under 1.
Alternately,
If abiogenesis is a hypothesis, then the statement 1 is a hypothesis which, by definition, is unproven. I might add that statement 1 is central part of the atheist view.
The hypothesis part of abiogenesis is merely about which natural process was it? All proposed models of abiogenesis are natural processes. The hypothesis part is not about did abiogenesis happen? Its about how did it happen?
So do you take
1. everything that happens in the universe happens due to natural processes
as a fact? Or do you take it as a hypothesis?
I still believe, as most atheists do, that abiogenesis is a fact even though the particulars have not been worked out. The fact that no model for abiogenesis has been identified as “proven”, is a moot point because all of the candidates are natural processes, aren’t they?
Again, I go back to one of your previous statements: facts are beliefs. I realize that J3eff takes offence to that, however, he doesn’t accept that all facts rely to some degree on assumptions. We must kee in mind that the statement, “everything that happens in the universe happens due to natural process” is made with universal intent, and universals can not be proven.
Abiogenesis and Creationists
Abiogenesis as a hypothesis is a moot point that only refers to which particular model will be verified.
Assuming one or more model is verified sometime in the future won’t help you and Jeff show them dumb ass Creationists real good, which is I think one of your aims.
Supposing some experiment resulted in generating some form of life in the lab. Creationist will say the scientists are intelligent beings and the experiment helps to demonstrate intelligent design. In other words, the experiment used intelligent beings manipulating material and forces to create life. Since no scientist was around millions of years ago to do that, it must have been God.
Even if some experiment showed how it could have happened all by itself, it doesn’t prove it it happened all by itself. For example, Creationists will say the material was a given by God, and God invented this material in such way that life was possible.
I know, You lack belief in that. So what? They don’t. That’s your personal prescientific choice.
Method of Doubt/Sketicism:
This part is for anyone interested in where the method of doubt leads.
The champion of that method, Descartes, found himself in the curious position of not being able to figure out how his mind (soul) connected to his body, and by extension the rest of the world. Clearly, in the end, his method led him to an incoherent position. Hence is it a curiosity to me why (some) natural scientists would latch onto his flawed method.
Descartes was on a search for certainty in knowledge. The search for certainty assumes it exists in the way he desires it to exist. I don’t buy that assumption. The kind of certainty he desired was in the land of unicorns.
The type of certainty you desire does not exist, and if you insist it does, and search for it, you end up like Descartes: incoherent.
An example of that incoherence in this thread is Jeff’s avoiding his own definition of fact. The definition of fact he supplied accurately included, the notion of assumption. Once I pointed that out t to him, he unempirically declined to acknowledge that facts rely on some assumptions. Why? Because he desires certainty that is unrealistic, its in unicorn territory.
Alternatives to Skepticism:
I believe I exist.
I believe everything in the universe is due to natural processes.
I believe the origin of life is due to natural processes.
That’s how you get out of the flawed method. You believe. If you don’t believe, you end up incoherent.
Refusing to believe is in vain.
I am keeping in mind here your statement that all facts are beliefs. I agree. That is one of the more profound things I read on this site.
Does Dawkins/God Exist?
When I read the book, the Blind Watchmaker, it looks like a creation/invention. I don’t need to see, or hear the author directly to know this book had an author. I don’t have to do any experiments. Nobody questions this way of knowing. None of you who read books ever questioned if the book really had an author/inventor/creator.
I see atoms and living cells as inventions. I take that as a fact. I don’t expect you or any atheist to necessarily accept it as as fact. Lacking belief in a living cell as an invention is your personal prescientific choice. That prescientific choice is part of your interpretive framework for knowledge which guides you. Nothing wrong with that. But there is no external, fixed, objective criteria for knowledge. There is noting that guarantees your interpretive framework is guaranteed truth. Your interpretive framework is within you, it is your criteria for truth, and it is there by your choice. Your personal choices do not guarantee truth.
Since atoms and living cells, and complete living organisms are invention like things, it is reasonable to believe there was a Creator of all the natural processes in the universe. You see, if I lacked belief in a creator, it would not comport well with the observation that atoms and cells are invention like things.
When an atheist attempts to get me to change my beliefs, he is asking me to adopt a presupposition that conflicts with the observation that atoms and living cells are invention like entities.
Atheists say, and they are entitled to, there is no evidence for God. But their evaluation of that doesn’t refer to any external, fixed, objective criterion for truth. Their idea of “evidence” is according to their internal presupposed framework for knowledge. In other words, its your personal perspective. There is no compelling evidence or reason to interpret “a living cell is an invention like thing” as “no evidence for God”. So the claim, “there is no evidence for God” presupposes a faith in your interpretive framework. Other people with a different interpretive framework, see it differently.
Ergo, the atheist view is a faith too because when you make an inference from with in your framework, you presuppose your framework, and so have faith in it.
There is nothing wrong with having a faith free of God. However, it is apparent to me that some atheists think they need to deny their presuppositions and assumptions. For what purpose?
Consistent with what I previously took as facts, I believe God created natural processes. God created abiogenesis. God relates to his creation via the natural process he created. So he is always at work in the world. That perspective presupposes my my interpretive framework, which is rationally consistent, and coheres with the findings of science.
Pluralism:
I used to be a fundamentalist minded Christian. They don’t accept other faiths which might explain their rigorous evangelical approach to atheists. They don’t understand that they too have an interpretive framework. They think they are steeped in truth. Don’t make the same mistake they do by assuming everything you believe must be true. Theism isn’t the problem. The problem is ideology. The problem is people assuming that their own personal perspective must be true, so we are going to force everyone to believe like us. Ideologues can’t accept that they too have a faith. Anyone who assumes that only they and like minded people have the truth are setting themselves up for ideology. Apparently in the in the cold war era the state in the USSR, run by the atheist Stalin, they tried to eradicate religion, based on the assumption that their version of Marxism was the be all and end all. Similarly in Marxist China. They apparently had no idea that their own ideology was a type of religion.
I began adopting a pluralistic view. My pluralism is premised on the observation that there is no external, fixed, objective, indubitably true criterion for truth. No world view can be proven, even the atheistic perspective guided by science. Theists too can be guided by science. There is noting in science that conflicts with my theistic perspective, consequently atheists don’t have monopoly on science. Moreover, natural science can not disprove any ideology.
"Travis, every atheist I ran into told me its a fact that everything that happens in the universe is due to natural process."
I doubt it. I have never met an atheist that claimed that they knew everything that happens in the universe and their cause. I think you may be exaggerating a bit here. In science we tend to work under the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, Causality, and Methodological Naturalism; but those are the pillars upon which our entire scientific understanding of reality rests. If you wish we can discuss those, but alluding to 'every atheist' as a borg collective and stating something suspect is unlikely to inspire good faith discussion.
"But now, when you claim abiogenesis is a hypothesis you necessarily imply that your fundamental view, namely, everything that happens in the universe is due to natural processes, is unproven."
A. I claimed abiogenesis is hypothesis because it has yet to be demonstrably verified and rigorously reviewed. It is a hypothesis, not a accepted scientific theory as of yet, and the distinction is important.
B. My statement that abiogenesis is a hypothesis was because it is a hypothesis, and did not imply anything further than that. Whether I am a philosophical naturalist or not is a separate conversation from whether abiogenesis is a hypothesis or not, and your willingness to infer volumes from a single sentence may actually work to your detriment in a place were people think critically.
"Yet you believe it."
I do, as that appears to be the case. In every verifiable case in which we have been able to determine a clear cause, it has been natural, and there is no reason to believe that such a trend will not continue.
"1. Everything that happens in the universe happens due to natural processes."
I can provide clear examples of things occurring due to natural causes. Can you provide a single verifiable instance of something occurring due to a cause that was not natural?
"2. Abiogenesis is a natural process by which a living organism arises from non-living mater."
This is not yet established science, so my confidence in it is rather tentative.
"If you take statement 1 as a fact, then statement 2 is a fact."
Nope. Abiogenesis could happen even in a universe where not all causes were natural. Just because some causes in that universe aren't natural does not mean that all causes are not. It is also true that abiogenesis could be wrong, as it is still tentative science, but that some other natural process accounts for life. Thus your argument is inconsistent from a purely logical standpoint.
"That is so because 2 is subsumed under 1."
Nope.
"If abiogenesis is a hypothesis, then the statement 1 is a hypothesis which, by definition, is unproven."
Even if abiogenesis turns out to be false, that would not invalidate uniformitarianism, so it could still be true. This collapses the house of cards you are building with disparate parts.
"I might add that statement 1 is central part of the atheist view."
Huh? Atheism is the disbelief of deities, not the supernatural as a whole. There a likely atheists who believe in ghosts and other supernatural claims, so your assertion here is worthless.
"The hypothesis part of abiogenesis is merely about which natural process was it?"
No, considering that it is not the sole hypothesis, its very validity is also in question. I am starting to think you don't know how science works...
"All proposed models of abiogenesis are natural processes."
Duh. Science functions on the principle of methodological naturalism, so every scientific model in existence are of natural processes. That should be inanely obvious. If you want some model based on unnatural processes, look elsewhere, like magic and fairy tales.
"The hypothesis part is not about did abiogenesis happen? Its about how did it happen?"
Both, actually.
"So do you take
1. everything that happens in the universe happens due to natural processes
as a fact? Or do you take it as a hypothesis?"
I take it as an ill-formed statement. So, let me fix it:
"Everything that happens in the universe appears to happen due to natural processes."
"I still believe, as most atheists do, that abiogenesis is a fact even though the particulars have not been worked out."
You should probably stop, then.
"The fact that no model for abiogenesis has been identified as “proven”, is a moot point because all of the candidates are natural processes, aren’t they?"
No, it is actually an important point. Until it is "proven", or demonstrated to be the most likely cause, then you should probably put less faith in it. I would hate for you to be disappointed if it doesn't pan out, like with Santa or God.
"Again, I go back to one of your previous statements: facts are beliefs. I realize that J3eff takes offence to that, however, he doesn’t accept that all facts rely to some degree on assumptions."
True.
"We must kee in mind that the statement, “everything that happens in the universe happens due to natural process” is made with universal intent, and universals can not be proven."
True, which makes me wonder why you would frame it in such a way. No scientist I have ever worked with claimed any such thing.
"Abiogenesis as a hypothesis is a moot point that only refers to which particular model will be verified."
No, until abiogenesis itself is verified, it isn't a fact. That is how facts work.
"Assuming one or more model is verified sometime in the future won’t help you and Jeff show them dumb ass Creationists real good, which is I think one of your aims."
You should probably avoid assuming my aims. I generally don't talk to creationists about it, because most of them are not interested in reality.
"Supposing some experiment resulted in generating some form of life in the lab. Creationist will say the scientists are intelligent beings and the experiment helps to demonstrate intelligent design. In other words, the experiment used intelligent beings manipulating material and forces to create life. Since no scientist was around millions of years ago to do that, it must have been God."
Probably. Another reason I don't engage creationists, they don't understand things. Like the difference between actively building a cell, and passively watching it self-assemble.
"Even if some experiment showed how it could have happened all by itself, it doesn’t prove it it happened all by itself."
True. If we ever discover the process, we will likely observe if very closely to see if it leaves traces inherent to the process, and then look to see if we can discover that to bolster the case that it happened.
"For example, Creationists will say the material was a given by God, and God invented this material in such way that life was possible."
Some are already saying that, it really doesn't matter. By the nature of such silly arguments, it means their god exists in the ever-shrinking holes in our scientific understanding. Those holes are already getting so small as to render their god moot.
"I know, You lack belief in that. So what? They don’t. That’s your personal prescientific choice."
My views produce results, like the computer you are using to read this. Theirs produce...well...the dark ages.
I am skipping some content because I don't really desire to discuss duality at this moment.
"I am keeping in mind here your statement that all facts are beliefs. I agree. That is one of the more profound things I read on this site."
I am glad you enjoyed it, I suppose. I tend to wax more esoteric than I should at times, a man should not live on bread alone and all that.
"Does Dawkins/God Exist?
When I read the book, the Blind Watchmaker, it looks like a creation/invention."
Why, specifically, do you think it looks like one? Say you saw a book for the very first time, what specific properties of it would lead you to believe that it was created/invented? Be specific.
"Nobody questions this way of knowing."
I believe I just did, didn't I?
"None of you who read books ever questioned if the book really had an author/inventor/creator."
There have been times I have wondered if a book I read had an INTELLIGENT designer. Seriously, there are some insipid fucking books out there. They will make you question the chances of sentient life on our own planet.
"I see atoms and living cells as inventions."
Same as the book. Why? Be specific.
"There is noting that guarantees your interpretive framework is guaranteed truth."
True, we need to have something to help bolster that framework, and provide acceptable reason to think that it is true. Now, the next part is what we need, and is so important I want you to pretend that it is in gigantic letters that are pulsating colors...
E V I D E N C E
At the end of the day, my beliefs are primarily based on it, and most theistic beliefs are NOT.
"Ergo, the atheist view is a faith too..."
Tu quoque. Not all faith is equal. Faith based on evidence is more reasonable and more epistemologically valuable than that which is not. Pretending the belief in a round earth is equivalent to the belief in a flat one is not very honest.
I am skipping the rest.
a) Philosophical naturalist
There is noting wrong with being a philosophical naturalist. There is nothing wrong with a scientist or any person having philosophical presuppositions. Everyone has presuppositions.
A definition: idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."
We can see in your presupposition that you have a duality in the way you frame your questions (similar to Descartes: natural (body)/ supernatural spiritual (immaterial mind or soul).) However it is not necessary to bring Descartes into it, it is only necessary to see the duality.
In my perspective I am dead set against duality. I don’t see duality in people or in the universe.
Given your presuppositions, I can now understand your question about EVIDENCE better, so lets have a look at your question.
I’m going to show how your question is shaped by your presuppositions. Then I’m going to show how your question is not based on what I believe.
Your question was:
I can provide clear examples of things occurring due to natural causes. Can you provide a single verifiable instance of something occurring due to a cause that was not natural?”
Your question assumes that God is not natural. And you assume that I believe God is not natural.
The theory that God must be “non natural or supernatural is rejected by me. I stated that in previous posts, yet you overlook the EVIDENCE on that. You see my previous posts that I don't believe in the supernatural realm, and characterization of
God, is "data" that you over looked. You are not the only atheist who overlooks evidence and assumes that I must accept your presuppositions, while simultaneously insisting you are "evidence based".
Is God supernatural? No, not to me. So when you ask the question for EVIDENCE of non-natural processes in the universe, you are asking the question from the perspective of your presuppositions, not mine.
I am from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible of that tradition doesn’t not see God as supernatural. The word “supernatural” was not invented at that time. The word supernatural does not exist in their language, that’s because they didn’t see God as supernatural. So when you say you are evidence based, where is your evidence that I think God is supernatural, and where is the evidence that ancient Hebrews thought God was super natural? There isn’t any evidence, yet you believe it and assume I must believe it.
The theory that God is supernatural is a flawed theory of God and your philosophical naturalism is shaped by a flawed theology that sees God that way. Philosophical naturalism is a reaction to a theology that I don't agree with. So you lack belief in a supernatural god, I do too and I stated that several times in other posts. The supernatural/natural view of the universe is incoherent, and I reject it.
So what is the alternative to a “supernatural” theory of God? I will try to illustrate how I think about God by the following. Some intelligent beings, automobile engineers, designed a car. Eventually, through various processes, the car was actualized, and I bought it, and now drive around in it from time to time. One thing we should note is that the original car way back when was an invention and it never existed before and now they are all over the place. So, originality is possible by (natural) intelligent beings, in this case inventors and engineers. These intelligent beings were not required to be “supernatural” in order to invent something that never existed before.
Similarly, there is no reason why God must be supernatural in order to invent the universe.
Moreover, the engineers who designed a car, are, with respect to the car, in some sense “all powerful”.
Similarly, God, with respect to the u universe is “all powerful”. In both cases “all powerful’ does not mean they can do anything, it It does not mean God is some magician, just as the car engineers are not magicians. It means the engineers are not subject to the rules of operation of the car. Similarly, God is not subject to the rules of operation of the universe.
I’ll say it differently: the engineers are not required to function like the car functions. Similarly, God is not required to function like the universe functions.
Supposing car engineers were in some sense supernatural, I can’t think of any way they could interact with cars in a non-natural way, so why would I thin God could interact with the universe in a non-natural way?
I hope that clarifies matters. So getting back to your question,
Can you provide a single verifiable instance of something occurring due to a cause that was not natural?”
No. But so what? God isn’t non-natural, any more than car engineers are non-natural. Would you ask me to show you non-natural processes in my car in order to prove car engineers exist? I hope not. So why do you ask the question that way with God? Because of your Faith in your presuppostions and your assumption that I must share your presuppositions. That’s why.
b) Evidence and presuppositions:
All your evidence is interpreted thought the lens of your presuppositions. You are not evidence based. Evidence is clues that you theorize about via the lens of your presuppositions.
Theories select facts that support them, and deselect facts that don’t support them. For example, in previous posts I wrote I don’;t believe in a “supernatural” realm or beings. I don’t accept the characterization of God as “supernatural”. Either you didn’t look for that evidence or your presuppositions deselected it.
Your theory of being “evidence based” is a flawed theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Generally, “evidence based “ theory of knowledge isn’t taken seriously any more, and haven’t for many decades. Yet you have abiding faith in it. That’s your prerogative, but just because you believe it, doesn’t mean I have to. I use the coherence theory of truth.
Since you think you are evidenced based, what stopped you from seeing the “data” that I don’t believe in a God that is characterized by the word ‘supernatural”?
Is philosophical naturalism coherent?
I think not. It allowed itself to be shaped by a middle age theology which itself is incoherent. If you can’t see the incoherence in a dualism, then I can’t explain the incoherence to you.
However, as I stated previously, all scientist have philosophical presuppositions, and I believe it is right for them to acknowledge it. In Newton’s scientific writings, he passionately wrote his theories and of God. Nothing wrong with that. It didn’t stop him from great acheivements. Similarily, scientists who are philosophical naturalists are entities to their beliefs. There is no criteria for truth that can stop scientists from holding metaphysical views, and their metaphysical views are part of their interpretive framework within which they conduct scientific activity.
c) I see a living cell as an invention like entity. For that we need to determine what inventions are like generally. Then we can see if a living cell fits with what invention in general are.
Inventions rely on the laws of physics and chemistry, but inventions can not be explained purely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. For example, Dawkins, in his book the blind watchmaker, briefly discusses physicalism, the metaphysics that all things can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. Then in that chapter he very quickly turns to a different view. For example, he writes of a steam engine and how does it work. He appeals to the insights of an engineer who could explain how a steam engine works without specific reference to the laws of physics and chemistry. It is clear that the laws of physics and chemistry are assumed, and definitely relied on, but the rules of operation of the steam engine are on a higher level.
It is this higher level that belies the metaphysics of physicalism (materialism).
The rules of operation of a living cell, similar to the steam engine, are not explainable purely interns of the laws of physics and chemistry. That is why the science of biology can not be subsumed by the science of physics and chemistry. Biology is looking at functions that are on a higher level than physics and chemistry. Living things are a different dimension of reality, that when studied, require methods different from the methods of physics and chemistry. Similarly with psychology. With the appearance of perception in living things, an entirely new function appears that can not be reduced to biology nor physics and chemistry. Perception has its own laws that although they rely on, and presuppose physics and chemistry are not reducible to physics and chemistry.
So here we get ever higher functions in living things that are inexplicable by physics and chemistry. These higher level functions are invention like things.
Many people believe the humans have the capacity for reason. Formal logic is the identification of rules for reasonableness that humans naturally have. If physicalism is true, then there should be, for example, a chemical formula for the rules of logic. If so what is it? The reality is, logic is irreducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. Physicalism is a preconceived idea, a metaphysics, that bears no fruit outside of physics and chemistry. The claim it can explain everything outside physics and chemistry is a faith. Logic is an invention like thing that is irreducible to physics and chemistry.
So I take a living cell as an invention like thing. When I look at inventions - a spear, a bow, a wheel, a wagon, a car, they all had inventors. It is reasonable for me to believe a living cell, an invention like thing, had an inventor.
I believe the inventor of living cells was the Creator God. God invented the natural processes by which life came to be. That process is abiogenesis. This God is not a supernatural being, so there will be no non-natural evidence for God. There will only be natural evidence for God.
My theory of the origin of the universe and the origin of life is entirely consistent with scientific findings. My God is not a supernatural God in a supernatural realm who breaks through the barrier to intervene in nature in a non-natural way. My God is a natural God who interacts with his creation in natural ways.
Your metaphysics is different from mine, but so be it. My personal opinion is scientists should , from time to time, re examine their philosophical views. They might from time to time invite a good philosopher to help them with that. But if all you scientists do is invite positivist minded philosophers, you get garbage in, garbage out. Look at some philosophies that challenge your views and evaluate them.
I’m a theist, but I didn’t presume I had all the answers. That’s why I read atheist works. One way to improve is to read and study ones competition. I found it exceptionally enlightening. My opinion is you would find it enlightening too. I am not trying to convince atheists to become theists. You want to be an atheist, so be a good one. If you are a good one, become a very good one.
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo11669941.html
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3633707.html
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo19722848.html
"There is noting wrong with being a philosophical naturalist."
I don't recall saying that there was.
"There is nothing wrong with a scientist or any person having philosophical presuppositions. Everyone has presuppositions."
Scientists actually do have to be careful to inventory their presuppositions, because we do have to avoid confirmation bias as much as possible. The method actually demands it.
"A definition: idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."
In science it is more an axiom of the methodology. The method can find or detect natural causes, forces, and laws that operate in the physical world. It cannot, however find or detect supernatural causes, forces, or laws because they are not falsifiable and unable to be confirmed in any meaningful way using naturalism.
"We can see in your presupposition that you have a duality in the way you frame your questions (similar to Descartes: natural (body)/ supernatural spiritual (immaterial mind or soul).)"
I am not entirely sure what the hell you are attempting to extract from my statements here, or how it would relate to duality when I abruptly refused to discuss it. I do not believe in either an immaterial mind or a soul, so I don't see how the duality I do not believe in would bleed into questions.
"However it is not necessary to bring Descartes into it, it is only necessary to see the duality."
I don't. I am not in the camp that find it necessary to separate the physical process of the mind from all the nonsense people want to conflate with it. Considering physical damage to the brain can change almost any facet of this supposed duality, it has no teeth worth mentioning. Ergo, I simply do not wish to discuss dualism, and it really doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about in the first place. Let's refrain from bringing numerous tangential topics that will divert our conversation, okay?
"Your question assumes that God is not natural."
Can or does he violate the laws of nature?
"And you assume that I believe God is not natural."
I don't actually know what you believe about god, you have been vague enough that you could believe god is an intangible spoon, so I can't really address your god. If you want me to address your specific god, you will have to describe it much better than you have until this point.
"The theory that God must be “non natural or supernatural is rejected by me. I stated that in previous posts, yet you overlook the EVIDENCE on that."
Where those posts to me? If not, you probably shouldn't assume I have read them, I tend to barely have time to read posts actually addressed to me.
"You see my previous posts that I don't believe in the supernatural realm, and characterization of God, is "data" that you over looked."
Again, a term so vague as to be utterly useless. We live in a quantized universe for shits sake, anything and everything in it could be considered "data".
"You are not the only atheist who overlooks evidence and assumes that I must accept your presuppositions, while simultaneously insisting you are "evidence based"."
Your presuppositions actually put you in a WORSE position, as if god is 'natural', then you should be able to provide positive evidence of its existence. However, if you are just redefining god as quantum particles, or some nonsense like that, it just makes you look semantically challenged.
"Is God supernatural? No, not to me."
I suppose if on arbitrarily redefined god to be natural, it would no longer be unnatural or supernatural, but that doesn't automatically make its existence any more likely. I could arbitrarily redefine god as the sun, but that would be idiotic.
"So when you ask the question for EVIDENCE of non-natural processes in the universe, you are asking the question from the perspective of your presuppositions, not mine."
Actually, I was asking for evidence for non-natural processes in the universe because you were challenging naturalism. That is a legitimate question to ask anyone who questions naturalism. My response had nothing to do with your god, but your statements.
"I am from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible of that tradition doesn’t not see God as supernatural. The word “supernatural” was not invented at that time. The word supernatural does not exist in their language, that’s because they didn’t see God as supernatural."
If you read the goddamned thing the supposed deity breaks and suspends the natural order a great number of times with no explanation but god saying something, like an incantation. The biblical god is, perhaps, one of the BEST examples of a god that supersedes the natural order. It is even more supernatural than Zeus and Odin COMBINED.
"So when you say you are evidence based, where is your evidence that I think God is supernatural, and where is the evidence that ancient Hebrews thought God was super natural?"
The bible.
"There isn’t any evidence, yet you believe it and assume I must believe it.
I don't assume you believe anything. You could believe in a flat earth and a geocentric universe for all I know, or really care for that matter. You have the right to be wrong, completely wrong if you want, it's up to you. I only really care about what the evidence seems to indicate.
"The theory that God is supernatural is a flawed theory of God and your philosophical naturalism is shaped by a flawed theology that sees God that way."
The idea that god is supernatural is based on its supposed properties and power, that supersedes nature, and defines it as being supernatural. It has more to do with definition than theology, as I don't have a theology.
"Philosophical naturalism is a reaction to a theology that I don't agree with."
Really, because it seems to me that if you believe EVERYTHING is natural, then you are a philosophical naturalist yourself. I think at this point you have been playing semantic tennis with the words involved so much that you have lost track.
"So you lack belief in a supernatural god, I do too and I stated that several times in other posts. The supernatural/natural view of the universe is incoherent, and I reject it."
Oh, I reject natural god concepts too. They are some of the most incoherent and useless concepts of god in existence.
"So what is the alternative to a “supernatural” theory of God? I will try to illustrate how I think about God by the following. Some intelligent beings, automobile engineers, designed a car. Eventually, through various processes, the car was actualized, and I bought it, and now drive around in it from time to time. One thing we should note is that the original car way back when was an invention and it never existed before and now they are all over the place. So, originality is possible by (natural) intelligent beings, in this case inventors and engineers. These intelligent beings were not required to be “supernatural” in order to invent something that never existed before."
Still useless, setting up an already pointed out false equivocation, and vaguely comparing your god to an engineer without actually describing it in any meaningful way.
"Similarly, there is no reason why God must be supernatural in order to invent the universe."
Really? Then explain how it could do it naturally.
"Moreover, the engineers who designed a car, are, with respect to the car, in some sense “all powerful”."
No. Not even close.
"Similarly, God, with respect to the u universe is “all powerful”."
In a completely different respect, with completely different implications, and completely nothing alike.
"In both cases “all powerful’ does not mean they can do anything,"
Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Similarly, God is not subject to the rules of operation of the universe."
Oh, wow, you just defined something supernatural...
"I’ll say it differently: the engineers are not required to function like the car functions."
As far as physics are concerned, yes, they are. There is not a single law in physics that does not apply to both of them equally.
"Similarly, God is not required to function like the universe functions."
Whoo, you defined supernatural again!
I am going to skip ahead because you are still in love with Tu Quoque. Not all positions are equal, and a Gish Gallop isn't going to change that.
"c) I see a living cell as an invention like entity. For that we need to determine what inventions are like generally. Then we can see if a living cell fits with what invention in general are."
Yippee, finally something USEFUL.
"Inventions rely on the laws of physics and chemistry, but inventions can not be explained purely in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry."
Huh. That's it? By that logic ANYTHING you don't understand is an invention. That is probably the worst criteria ever.
"It is this higher level that belies the metaphysics of physicalism (materialism)."
There is so much wrong with this sentence. Do you even English?
"The rules of operation of a living cell, similar to the steam engine, are not explainable purely interns of the laws of physics and chemistry."
Have you ever even taken Molecular Biology or Biochemistry? With all that wishy-wasy mumbo jumbo I was sure that you would at least bring up something we really couldn't explain well, but no, you pick something that has been well understood for YEARS.
"That is why the science of biology can not be subsumed by the science of physics and chemistry."
Nope. The reason the FIELD of Biology hasn't been subsumed by physics and chemistry is that not all of Biology is physics and chemistry. You also have genetics, anatomy, taxonomy, comparative biology, and others that are related but not only physics and chemistry.
"Living things are a different dimension of reality, that when studied, require methods different from the methods of physics and chemistry."
What? No, same four dimensions of reality, just a different field. Those fields are STILL naturalistic and scientific though.
"Similarly with psychology."
Nope, still science.
Seems to me you are just trying to pack so much stuff in that people give up, which isn't a good idea.
Pages