Science, a concept few theists want to understand

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
"If the churches did not have

"If the churches did not have such advantages as tax free funding, a vast established bureaucracy then maybe there would be more room for other organisations."

And just as relevant, exempt from external audit.

boomer47's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"A major theme running through the Bible is that I AM my brothers keeper."

Indeed.

The bible says Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment ?

Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love god. Second ONLY TO THIS is "love they neighbour as thyself"

Jesus was then asked; " Who is my neighbour ?" His response was to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan

I was taught the meaning of that parable is clear; Everyman is my neighbour.

Why do you think it is this commandment which is most ignored by christians? . At least as far as I can see.

I'm unsurprised that Christians operate soup kitchens and shelter the homeless as well as many, many other good works; it's their "Christian duty"

There are some great secular charities, such as the Fred Hollows Foundation, and Doctors Without Borders.

I can speak only of myself; my atheism does not define me as a person as Christianity seems to define christians.

My morality is based secular humanism, not some allegedly divinely revealed book(s). I try to live a moral life for its own sake, not in hope of reward or fear of punishment.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Secular humanism is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently good or evil, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Grinseed's picture
No Jo, its not the same at

No Jo, its not the same at all. Its seems radically different.

In pagan Australia we have many charity organisations that aren't run by theists at all. They are great numbers run by agnostics, atheists and humanists.

So its good, I suppose, that you're 'NOT suggesting atheists cannot or do not do good'.

We have here in Australia both religious and secular non-profit charities that provide free housing and assistance, both medical and general for the long-term unemployed, destitute, homeless, mentally ill and otherwise handicapped members of our society as well as those victims of domestic violence. Its part of Australian tradition to extend a 'fair go' to others, regardless of who or what they are or believe. AND we have a national publicly funded healthcare system that provides comprehensive medical cover for ALL citizens for free or at minimum cost. No-one goes bankrupt in this country because they get sick. They get help instead.

Despite egalitarian aspirations, I prefer to donate to the secular charities like the Royal Institute for Blind and Deaf Children, the Red Cross, the Motor Neurone Foundation, and the RSPCA (yeah animals, I love em) as I know they receive less funding than the religious organisations and with whose good works I am familiar.

To address my parting comment in my last post that obviously triggered your awkwardly worded response, I am suggesting that a god is not required for charitable works or humane acts or even a sense of fraternity and neither are prayers, which as far as I know are of more benefit for the supplicant than the intended beneficiary in sheer practical terms, no matter how earnest. I also recall that in the NT the suggestion is that praying for a miraculous intervention in the well being of another requires the knowledge and co-operative faith of the beneficiary as well.

I am also aware of and have personally benefited from the charitable works of theists and do not seek to denigrate their humane contributions. I am particularly grateful to the sisters and brothers of the catholic hospice who tended to my late wife. They did so with extreme care without judgement.
I just wish they could give up the woo.

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"In the large city where I live there are three large homeless shelters.
All run by Atheists...I mean Theists.
Is it the same where you live?"

No.

The largest homeless shelter in Toronto is Seaton House. It is definitely non-theist.

Cognostic's picture
I have a pin with 17 angels

I have a pin with 17 angels on it. Okay, they probably aren't real angels. The pin was worn down a bit. Angels are smaller today than they were back then. You can't prove me wrong so it must be true.

Grinseed's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

Seventeen angels?
On the head of a pin?
What are they doing?
Twisting?
Or slow dancing in pairs?
With one stand out?
Are they allowed to do that?
We all know what that leads to, yeah?.

Rock and roll.

Cognostic's picture
Everyone knows Rock-n-roll is

Everyone knows Rock-n-roll is music spawned of the devil. Just standing up to dance can lead to sex.

Apollo's picture
Science studies the natural

Science studies the natural processes that God created. Consequently, there is no conflict between science and theism.
There are of course ancient expressions of theism which were formulated before modern discoveries by theists. Examples of such theists who made modern discoveries were Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton. Many of the greats in science were theists.
Science isn't about if God exists or does not exist. Science is about learning how God's creation works.

Moreover, according to science, science can't explain how the universe came to be. Atheist claims that science explains everything is just a faith.

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

There is constant conflict between science and theism. Galileo had to fight an uphill battle against his own church to put out his propositions on astronomy. If the roman catholic church enjoyed the power it possessed a thousand years ago, we would still be in the dark ages.

Religion is all about maintaining power and the status quo. Science is all about answering questions and exploring this universe.

"science can't explain how the universe came to be."

Agreed. But science will not lie and make up bullshit just to look good. Science is honest, if it does not know, that is the honest answer.

Apollo's picture
yes, Galileo had a conflict

yes, Galileo had a conflict with the Pope of the day, but Galileo himself was a christian before and after that conflict. So I don't really see how Galileo's theism conflicted with science. It was two theists who had a disagreement, and the theist Galileo was eventually vindicated. Some historians leave out the fact that Galileo was a christian. Possibly they are atheist historians who leave that fact out in order to put an atheist spin on that dramatic encounter. Too, the event is over generalized. The same church that dogmatically dealt with Galileo currently endorses the theory of evolution although the church does not require members to believe in evolution.

It isn't fair, based on one historical incident, to generalize that all churches and theists have conflicts with science.

Even atheists don't agree with each other on everything. I am aware of an atheist scientist who claims to know how the universe began. So he would be in disagreement with you. would it be valid to say he is lying? I'm not sure he is lying; it looks more like he really has faith in his perspective as do theists in their own.

I'm having trouble with your use of the word "lie". Good science is honest, but there is such a thing as bad science. There are frauds in science such as the guy who fabricated data to "prove" cold fusion. I don't think we should treat science the way fundamentalist theists see the Bible. Science isn't inerrant and to paint it as infallible is a fundamentalist error.

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

"It was two theists who had a disagreement"

Definitely untrue. It was the jesuits that got their undies in a twist. It was one man against one of the most powerful arms of the church.

"Some historians leave out the fact that Galileo was a christian. Possibly they are atheist historians who leave that fact out in order to put an atheist spin on that dramatic encounter."

Oh my, the old conspiracy theory. The truth is that most people know little about Galileo (because too many live in ignorance), and it is right there, in history books on what happened to Galileo. Galileo was incredibly devout, in fact as a young man he intended to enter the church. Two of his daughters became nuns. And he played a mean Lute. Galileo was on good terms with the pope, and he mistakenly assumed that the pope would protect him from backlash. But Galileo's proposition ran contrary to the current dogma, and the pope could not protect him.

"It isn't fair, based on one historical incident, to generalize that all churches and theists have conflicts with science."

When I post a rebuttal, I try to make it just one example, and my best example. Please do not assume that I have just one bullet in my gun. A bullet to the heart is still a fatal blow. It takes just one bullet to kill an unfounded assertion.

Apollo's picture
Yes, some details get lost in

Yes, some details get lost in histories that are too general. Thank you for the details about the trouble making Jesuits and the fact that Galileo was on good terms with the Pope.

Never the less, Galileo was a theist, as was Kepler, Copernicus, and Newton. Too, reportedly Einstein wrote

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Excellent science apparently does not have to be done by atheists, as some imply.

I might add, not that it has anything to do with you, that the sad ban on Copernicus's writings was lifted a long time ago. Science makes mistakes and unreliable theories are abandoned. Similarly, churches make mistakes and they reform.

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

"Science makes mistakes and unreliable theories are abandoned. Similarly, churches make mistakes and they reform."

Superficially, I agree with that comment.

But the methodology of science is self-correcting and designed to explore, while with religion, they cling to past dogmas until forced to change.

The Reichskonkordat was signed on July 20, 1933. The treaty remains in force to the present day. If the church was actually progressive and wanted to fix bad mistakes from the past, would they not want to officially cancel this deal they made with Hitler?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Apollo - Atheist claims that

Apollo - Atheist claims that science explains everything is just a faith.

I've never heard an atheist (or anyone for that matter), make that claim. Sounds like a strawman.

Apollo's picture
Well it could be an over

Well it could be an over generalization so I'll look at it again: - There seems to be a natural explanation vs supernatural explanation disagreement. Atheists reject the supernatural part, leaving the natural explanation part. (Incidentally, I don't use the term supernatural myself, but obviously others do).

Since atheists reject the supernatural part, leaving the natural explanation part what other options do you see? Besides, Richard Dawkins has written many books tied to the claim there is a natural scientific explanation for everything. Surely you have heard of him?

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

"Atheists reject the supernatural part, leaving the natural explanation part."

Please allow me to rephrase this wild piece of propaganda.

Most atheists are critical thinkers, and they decide on reality and valid observation.

Sheldon's picture
Trolltacular, Apollo is back.

Trolltacular, Apollo is back.

LogicFTW's picture
@Apollo

@Apollo

Moreover, according to science, science can't explain how the universe came to be.

You are right there, nothing (especially your particular god idea) can explain what happened before the big bang. Humans lack the tools (so far) to be able to observe anything before the big bang. So the correct answers is a big fat: "we do not know." Not: "we do not know therefore my completely unevidenced in any way god idea."

Atheist claims that science explains everything is just a faith.

Wow. This is a particularly hilarious.

A theist makes a claim that: all atheist make a claim.

A claim that Apollo in no way could possibly evidence, and is completely incorrect on, (I am an atheist myself and I know that statement already to be false.) Then we remember this theist comes to an atheist debate forum to make such a claim.

If you are not trolling for responses, Apollo, I consider you incredibly arrogant and close minded. Saying a group of people that identify opposite to you how they think, and how it proves you right (in your own head) and them wrong. All without any sort of demonstrable proof that you are even remotely right about any of it.

Apollo's picture
OK, you don't make the claim

OK, you don't make the claim "all atheists make the claim there is or will be a natural scientific explanation for everything." But some atheists do. Too, you imply with your phrase "so far" humans don't have the tools to see pre-big bang. That implies you believe humans will get the tools to "evidence" the pre-big bang era. I'm skeptical of that. the only tool anyone is aware of is the coherence theory of knowledge which doesn't require empirical evidence for everything.

I am aware of an atheist scientist who claims to know of the pre-big bang era and how the universe came to be. I'm sure you will be at odds with him due to your "evidence" this, "evidence" that theory because he doesn't have any empirical evidence for his views. In an up coming thread I will present the atheist scientist perspective on the origin of the universe.

You seem to be stuck on "evidenced". The atheist Hawkings promoted string theory in opposition to particle theory even though strings are apparently unevidenced and not testable or verifiable by experiment. Strings were assumed by him and his colleagues. That assumption opened the door to his mathematical journey to multi universes, all, to use your term, "unevidenced". Some of those universes were proposed to be prior to our universe. Again, all that, to use your term, "unevidenced". I think atheists on this forum tend to over simplify things with your "unevidenced" mantra. Other atheists, such as Hawkings and his colleagues weren't so closed minded. Clearly, Hawkings and his colleagues were employing an epistemology that differs from yours. Too, this idea that everything has to be "evidenced" never came from science, it came from philosophy. And science, except for lip service because it sounded good, mostly ignored it. Science invents what ever methods are needed to achieve a particular goal. It doesn't commit itself to a 1920's philosophy of knowledge.

My thesis is that Hawking was, willy nilly, employing was is called the coherence theory of truth/knowledge. Your theory, that claims must be be "evidenced" was popular back in the 1920's give or take a few decades. The idea that all claims must be "evidenced" in order to be meaningful was abandoned because it didn't meet its own criteria; there was no evidence to prove it. That opened the door for the atheist scientist Hawking to employ "unevidenced" string theory.

I'm a pluralist: people can believe what ever they want to believe. The can also disbelieve what ever they want to disbelieve. For example, I believe in abiogenesis even though I don't know HOW it happened. Don't you believe in abiogenesis even though you don't know how it happened?

Similar to my belief in abiogenesis, I believe in a creator God. I don't know how God did it, just like I don't know how abiogenesis happened.
Belief in a creator God, and belief in abiogenesis are not explanations. they don't show how it happened, they are simply beliefs about what happened. I'm skeptical that either will be as you put it, "evidenced".

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

"The atheist Hawkings promoted string theory in opposition to particle theory even though strings are apparently unevidenced and not testable or verifiable by experiment. Strings were assumed by him and his colleagues. That assumption opened the door to his mathematical journey to multi universes, all, to use your term, "unevidenced". Some of those universes were proposed to be prior to our universe. Again, all that, to use your term, "unevidenced"."

I was able to question a reputable scientist WHO WAS ALSO A DEVOUT THEIST. I asked him on what string theory was, and his reply was that is it just a mathematical tool that assists in unraveling mysteries. String theory is not recognized as a scientific theory. It is just a tool, like trigonometry.

But just like Einstein who followed his mathematics to reveal such things as gravity warping the path of sunlight, or the possibility of black holes, those who use string theory have also followed where string theory math leads, and it does open the door to such propositions as a multiverse. None if that can be presently proven, it may all be a dead end in inquiry. Then again, it may lead to opening up a large area of learning and exploration. But until a better method arises, string theory is a darn good tool in it's application.

Can you suggest a better method in discovery?

Apollo's picture
I wasn't disagreeing with the

I wasn't disagreeing with the method, and in fact agree with the method. That's why I wrote about it.

A common view in this forum is a love of empiricism to the exclusion of other methods. I floated the Einstein example here years ago only to fall on deaf ears, and blind eyes. The reality that empiricism is a philosophy of knowledge that science mostly ignores and that was abandoned as flawed is lost on many participants here.

Thank you for your support. As I wrote in a previous post, I have encountered about a half dozen atheists here who appear to be reasonable. You seem to be one of them.

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

"Thank you for your support."

Thank you. I constantly remind myself that there is a real person on the other side of my monitor, one with family, emotions, and all the other attributes that makes us human. I always strive to attack the post, not the poster, although at times I slip.

"The reality that empiricism is a philosophy of knowledge that science mostly ignores and that was abandoned as flawed is lost on many participants here."

I have to disagree. Empiricism is built on our senses and observed results to be used to construct answers to questions. And that is fundamentally the scientific method. In fact, I suggest that most atheists in here are radical empiricists, where one of it's proponents stated "directly apprehended universe needs ... no extraneous trans-empirical connective support", by which he meant to rule out the perception that there can be any value added by seeking supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. (last sentence taken from Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism)

But as you know well, many of us atheists in here lean on the scientific method. Myself and others consider it the most reliable and effective method in uncovering the REAL truth. I go one step further, I do not accept anything but proven results and/or evidence, and no amount of cogent arguments will win the day for me.

When Einstein released his famous theory of relativity, it was not initially accepted. But once Eddington's observations of an eclipse confirmed Einstein's theory was it fully embraced by the scientific community. This is the camp I am a member of.

Apollo's picture
1. I don't use the term

1. I don't use the term "supernatural". It is a Middle Ages term formulated in the context of a dualistic view of reality. I don't have a dualistic view of reality, so I don't use that term.
2. You disagree concerning empericism. I agree with this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Logical positivism/empericism is dead. it a historical fact. It isn't a rejection of the senses. It is a rejection of the idea that what is sensed is the foundation for all knowledge. it is dead be cause that idea of the foundation was never empirically nor experimentally verified. Hence, it did not meet its own criteria for true knowledge.
3. You wrote, "Empiricism is built on our senses and observed results to be used to construct answers to questions" It seems like you are saying observations come first, then answers are derived (logically) from observations. If so, that is the essence of empirical foundationalism.
4. However, you gave the example of Einstein who saw rationality in nature and via the power of reason formulated and published his theory. He knew it was true and committed himself to the theory. Then came Eddington's experiments. Nothing wrong with that. But it happened in an order opposite to what logical empiricists claim it should happen. If Eddington had done his experiments first and then Einstein had formulated his theory based on Eddington's observations, it would fit better with the philosophy of empiricism.
4. In reiteration, rejection of the logical Empericist view is not a rejection of the senses and of experimentation. it is a rejection of the unreliable idea that observations are the exclusive foundation of science. Empiricists typically tried to push reason and rationality out of the foundation of science. Both reason and the senses are components of the foundation of science. Consequently, I don't agree with your definition of the scientific method. You left out reason and rationality in nature in favor of the exclusivity of the senses.

5. The fact that Empericists try to push reason out from the foundation of science is purely a philosophical motive.
6. Given your philosophical position, I take it that in one fell swoop you reject the work of the (atheist) Stephen Hawking. Yes? No?

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

oops, double post.

One post removed.

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

I am very familiar with logical positivism, being a huge fan of Einstein and being a cosmos/physics nerd.

Before Einstein's theory, no one considered examining the locations of stars during eclipses. So this is a case of observation confirming a theory. I agree, normally observation leads to theory. But if you know Einstein, most of his "observations" were the results of his thought experiments. His conclusions were derived from known observations and thought experiments to arrive at a completely new way to perceive the structure of space and time.

I am a huge admirer of Hawking. But I do not ascribe to the concept that if you are brilliant on one topic, you are infallible on everything else. Darwin opened the door on evolution, but many of his peripheral concepts have been proven dated or just incorrect.

I accept a lot of Hawking's statements, but I reject others.

I learned this life lesson during my youth, being a huge fan of Grand Funk Railroad. I flat out loved their early work (went through three Live albums because of hard partying and being played so much), but their third album was limpid, and after I rushed to buy their fourth album, I realized their music was not to my tastes anymore. I do not cling to people or bands.

I assess them one item at a time.

Apollo's picture
1. Give me the title of a

1. Give me the title of a book written by a positiveist/empericist about empiricism that you have read, and that you agree with.
2.
you state that you are a huge fan of Einstein, and somehow you connect that with being very familiar with logical positivism. The very idea that Einstein was a positivist/empericist is mistaken. Einstein ignored them, as did Eddington.

3. I can find no evidence that Einstein himself did not know he was correct until Eddington s' experiment. Einstein already knew he was correct. Einstein published his theory in stages, first in 1907 and also in 1911 prior to his 1915 paper. Reportedly, in 1917, two US observatories conducted experiments and announced that they had disproved Einstein's theory. If one was to believe that observation and experiment was the sole foundation of science, that would be that. Interestingly, that experimental disproving of Einstein's fndings did not deter Eddington who was convinced by Einstein's thought experiment method and reasoning. Moreover, that experimental disproving of Einstein's theory did not prompt Einstein to admit he was wrong. Eddington rejected the 1917 experiential observations in favor of the theory, as did Einstein. Rejecting observations in favor of theories happens a lot in science. Part of the problem in gaining acceptance for the theory was few had the education and training to understand it. I might also mention that I find no evidence that Eddington didn't believe and know Einstein was correct prior to his experiment as he clearly understood and backed the theory prior to his experiment. Eddington's brilliance was performing an experiment, the results of which the masses could grasp even if they didn't understand the reasons for the results.

4. And speaking of Eddington, he had an a priori system of physics. So clearly, he ignored the positivist/empiricist philosophers and scientists who were attempting to eliminate the a priori from science. Too, Einstein with his thought experiment method ignored positivism/empiricism. There is no evidence he was in the least interested in it. Central to the positivist/empiricist program were the false ideas that objectivity and observation alone occupied the foundations of science. Not only did Eddington and Einstein ignore such a priori claims, positivism/empericism took a serious and fatal pounding in the 1950's. it is simply a historical fact. Nobody who knows what they are talking about seriously promotes the positivist/empiricist notion of objectivity. Empiricism boils down to a belief system that is tied to a priori assumptions which stabbed empiricism in the heart until it bled out.

6. And speaking of Einstein and God, apparently he believed in God as defined by Spinoza. So now we have Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, all believing in some variation of God.

7. Consequently, based on observations and reasons, I see no evidence for the idea that science eliminates belief in God nor that science disproves God, or disproves that God created the natural processes that constitute evolution. I expect that the belief system of, to borrow Einstein's phrase, fanatical atheists, will be adhered to despite observations to the contrary.

To reiterate my initial request, give me the title of a book written by a positivist/empiricist about empiricism that you have read and agree with.

LogicFTW's picture
@Apollo

@Apollo

That implies you believe humans will get the tools to "evidence" the pre-big bang era. I'm skeptical of that.

I am also skeptical. But! At current rates of human advancement in technology, that this may one day be possible. We humans just recently were able to start to evidence Higg's Boson theory using CERN. And there is now talk of building something even bigger then CERN. Leading to new discoveries that we are only beginning to understand. Our current knowledge of the universe has been limited to forms of information like "light" and radiation that we could detect and measure, this is now changing, with more discovery possible.

I am aware of an atheist scientist who claims to know of the pre-big bang era and how the universe came to be.

You accurately described it as a claim. Also theist scientist have made similar claims. Not sure why you felt you had to label it as an atheist only thing.

You seem to be stuck on "evidenced".

Yep, I am. I am very much stuck on evidenced. We already discussed this. You owe me 1 million dollars. Prove to me you do not. You can't. Why? because I made my claim, and it is not evidenced in any way. To me it is ridiculous to accept anything that is not properly evidence to be the "truth" or reality. It is especially bad for the religion/god ideas because:

1) the claims are enormous, meaning of life, how everything came to be, how we should behave, and so on.
2) The claim has already been extensively investigated, by billions of people over thousands of years, and despite all that searching still, all of it leads to zero evidence that can actually be repeated, tested, and demonstrated. All other "evidence" is just people talking (or writing things down.) And we are all well aware humans are capable of creating fiction, whether intentional or not.

As for your string theory stuff, in interest of keeping this post shorter, I agree with the responses from others here already given above.

Don't you believe in abiogenesis even though you don't know how it happened?

Err, now we are talking about knowing something or not? Instead of evidence?

Also, you need to catch up, parts of abiogenesis already HAS been evidenced, by repeatable demonstrable evidence. There are working to fill in the gaps, but I suspect within a few decades scientist can recreate abiogenesis at will in a lab. I would not be surprised if kids in biology class 50-100 years from now, at current rates of advancement can demonstrate abiogenesis in high school biology.

Belief in a creator God, and belief in abiogenesis are not explanations. they don't show how it happened, they are simply beliefs about what happened.

Fully agree with you there, I am curious if you realize what you just wrote there. You basically affirmed that your god idea is just a belief instead of an actual properly evidenced idea/concept.

You just put your entire god idea at the same level as the harry potter series. Some (very few hopefully) believe harry potter and the world described in the books is real. Kids believe santa is real. You just stated your belief in a creator god is on the same level as these. Demonstrable evidence separates out ideas that might be reality from ideas that only exist in our heads.

Apollo's picture
1. You consistently talk as

1. You consistently talk as if empirical evidence is the sole foundation of science. That idea has been refuted. The attempts to push rationality out from the foundation of science is philosophically motivated.
I believe observations and rationality are components of the foundation of science.
2. Abiogenesis: Yes I am well aware of lab experiments relating to abiogeneis. Some such experiments were reported decades ago, and I have previously discussed them here years ago. fundamentalist theists will not be persuaded by such experiments however. they will say that the scientists who constructed the lab and the experiments are intelligent beings whose experiments are of an intelligent design. they will say, the abiogenesis of life in the lab required intelligent designers, namely, the scientists.
My point about agiogenesis was not about "gaps" or 'god of the gaps' or anything like that. I find that stuff to be not very interesting. Its good for me to know about the "gaps" issue, but I don't find the issue to be foundational. It makes no difference to belief in a creator God for me.

I believe, and I think I know, abiogenesis occurred even though I don't know how it occurred. Circumstances simply make alternate views on the origin of life implausible (to me). Circumstances is how I know. An atheist has a youtube video which employs the courtroom metaphor to illustrate his point. Similarly, I will use it. People get convicted on circumstantial evidence. No one saw the perp do it, but circumstances indicate it must have been her who did it. Too, prosecutors do not have to know exactly how it happened in order to know it did happen.

But some of you folks here are so obsessed with directly seeing before knowing even though science and the real world do not work that way.

David Killens's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

You went through a lot of effort to disprove proof or evidence by attempting to discredit various areas of scientific work and methodology, but despite so many paragraphs, I reject your thesis.

I do so because those methods and philosophical positions yielded amazing and confirmed results.

As a theist, please provide proof or evidence of your god.

"I believe, and I think I know, abiogenesis occurred even though I don't know how it occurred. Circumstances simply make alternate views on the origin of life implausible (to me). Circumstances is how I know. An atheist has a youtube video which employs the courtroom metaphor to illustrate his point. Similarly, I will use it. People get convicted on circumstantial evidence. No one saw the perp do it, but circumstances indicate it must have been her who did it. Too, prosecutors do not have to know exactly how it happened in order to know it did happen."

No, circumstantial evidence does not have to be present to prove abiogenesis. There is direct and irrefutable proof of abiogenesis.

There is life on this planet, ergo it happened.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Apollo - That implies you

Apollo - That implies you believe humans will get the tools to "evidence" the pre-big bang era.

Already happened.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.