nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How do you convince people god exists?

ILoveYourVibes

How do you in history?

And how do you do it now?

With all the evidence etc.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

I just see it as an honest assessment of what the evidence points to

Which evidence exactly? You have not actually presented any evidence of any sort. Least of all evidence that our universe and/or life within it was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

Why is it you people talk and talk about "the evidence" without ever actually showing a shred of it?

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't see any good reason to rule out the supernatural option

Nor do I. But saying "There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer from you that the supernatural option is credible at this time" is not ruling it out. Pointing out that you have failed, utterly and spectacularly, to support a hypothesis is NOT the same thing as ruling out the hypothesis.

It could very well be a valid and entirely correct hypothesis for all we know. You just have, to date, offered not a single shred of a reason to think so.

kelly1 wrote: »

My own view is that the random/natural option must be ruled out because of the extreme improbabilities involved.

Yet you have not shown it to be all that improbable at all, let alone "extremely". What you have done is fall prey to a number of fallacies and assumptions, which I have pointed out and described and highlighted in some detail, which have led you to think the probability argument is MUCH more applicable than it actually is. Alas your chosen response was to dig down on, and cling to, those fallacies and false assumptions.

kelly1 wrote: »

IMO, the only proposition that makes logical sense, intuitively speaking

You have not shown any logic to it though. As for intuition that is even worse. Our intuition is very flawed and very limited as humans. So things that appeal greatly to our intuition turn out to be very false. Some things that break our intuitions entirely turn out to be quite true. Your reliance on intuition is not one I would advise.

Hell intuition fails most humans on even the most basic things. For example I have often had fun asking people down the pub what would happen if I could half a piece of paper and lay the halves on top of one another. Then half the two and place the 4 pieces on top of each other.

I ask them how tall the stack would get if I repeated that operation a mere 100 times. The highest answer I ever got was "probably taller than this pub". That is what human intuition gives us.

The actual answer? Well the stack would quickly become so high, well before you even got to 100, that it would take light itself millennia to traverse it's length. Human intuition can not even encompass that most of the time. So your appeals to it are but the bleating of a sheep in the face of a storm in comparison.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

If you have multiple gods, this raises all sorts of problems like who created each of these gods and why and which came first. The simplest, most logical proposition is a single God

if your rationale is to suggest that a single god is more sensible than multiple gods, i will take that reasoning (that fewer gods is more logical) and posit that 'no gods' is more logical than 'a single god'.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

IMO, the only proposition that makes logical sense, intuitively speaking, is a single, monotheistic God. If you have multiple gods, this raises all sorts of problems like who created each of these gods and why and which came first. The simplest, most logical proposition is a single God. i.e. a Being which has existed eternally (outside of time) and was never created (the uncreated Creator, the uncaused Cause of all).

You seem to confusing logic with desire there. The logic that allows one uncreated god to have always existed is exactly the same as to have many uncreated gods that always existed, or to have them pop into being or emerge from the chaos or the void or wherever else. The probability of any creation myth, or any random fantasy for that matter, being true rests entirely on the supporting evidence and the contradictory evidence. Really wanting it to be true doesn't have any bearing on the matter.

kelly1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you accept that ID is creationism then? Good, lets stop calling it by its cynical rebrand then and just keep using its real name.

I just see it as an honest assessment of what the evidence points to. I don't see any good reason to rule out the supernatural option even if it is "unscientific". It could very well be the truth and I would argue that naturalism is a very shaky position to hold.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why not?

Because it's only the confirmation of the standard model of particle physics, not a breakthrough (like general relativity or quantum mechanics).

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

(a) How do you propose that anyone will be able to show that (i.e. using actual evidence not theistic conjecture)?

We have no way of scientifically detecting the intelligent agent being proposed by ID adherents. Like I said earlier, this would be a dead end for science. My own view is that the random/natural option must be ruled out because of the extreme improbabilities involved.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

(b) Even if (a) can be shown to be true, what has any of that got to do with the thousands of completely unevidenced gods invented by humans?

IMO, the only proposition that makes logical sense, intuitively speaking, is a single, monotheistic God. If you have multiple gods, this raises all sorts of problems like who created each of these gods and why and which came first. The simplest, most logical proposition is a single God. i.e. a Being which has existed eternally (outside of time) and was never created (the uncreated Creator, the uncaused Cause of all).

Hotblack Desiato

kelly1 wrote: »

SIf it can be shown that an intelligent agent is required to create life, then I think we have a good argument for God.

(a) How do you propose that anyone will be able to show that (i.e. using actual evidence not theistic conjecture) ?
(b) Even if (a) can be shown to be true, what has any of that got to do with the thousands of completely unevidenced gods invented by humans?

Do you know of anything less than a cell that would be considered "life"? Afaik, viruses don't meet all the criteria of a living organism.

Neither does a foetus but we had plenty of people last year claiming that they were living organisms.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

I wouldn't call the discovery of the predicted Higgs Boson a great leap.

Why not?

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

If it can be shown that an intelligent agent is required to create life, then I think we have a good argument for God.

So you accept that ID is creationism then? Good, lets stop calling it by its cynical rebrand then and just keep using its real name.

So, do we really need to explain to you what is unscientific about creationism?

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

When they say "Peptides can form", what they actually mean is that peptides *can be formed/synthesized* (in a lab under the agency of intelligent chemists). Correct?

What they actually mean is what the article says, did you even read it?

Peptides, one of the fundamental building blocks of life, can be formed from the primitive precursors of amino acids under conditions similar to those expected on the primordial Earth, finds a new study.

The team identified a sequence of simple reactions, combining hydrogen sulfide with aminonitriles and another chemical substrate ferricyanide, to yield peptides.

The molecules that served as substrates to help the formation of the amide bonds in the experiments are outgassed during volcanism and are all likely to have been present on the early Earth.

"This is the first time that peptides have been convincingly shown to form without using amino acids in water, using relatively gentle conditions likely to be available on the primitive Earth," said co-author Dr Saidul Islam (UCL Chemistry).

If you are going to keep up the pretense that ID is science, don't you think you should actually read the scientific articles presented to you? It's not even an argument from ignorance at this stage, it is just fingers-in-ears denial.

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, not a very good analogy because 5200 cards in random order is nothing special and has no useful purpose.

But that IS the point of the analogy. You are faulting it on the very point you are missing. The fallacy you are employing, or at least the video that was lying to you is employing, is to assume there is only one "useful" result. We simply do not know that to be true.

If you laid out the 5200 cards randomly in other words.... and then declared that result to be THE meaningful one... it would seem amazing when it is not. That is what you are doing with DNA. You are looking at the result, declaring it based on no evidence to be the only one that could be meaningful, and saying "wow" at your own assertion.

If you want to create evidence for the idea that only one solution and sequence is functional and meaningful then go for it! But such evidence has never been mentioned to me yet in the past.

kelly1 wrote: »

You really think somethings more complex than the cell existed and then it later simplified? How plausible is that??

Well no, that is not what i mean. That is the opposite of what I mean. What I mean is that complexity can be obtained from earlier SIMPLER structures. That is the point of the arch bridge analogy. You can build something quite simple, then remove no longer required elements of it, and the result will look a lot more complex than it otherwise might.

kelly1 wrote: »

We're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution assumes existing life, doesn't it?

No. Evolution does not assume "life" at all. It assumes only what I told you it assumes in another part of my post. That is: The existence of SOMETHING That replicates itself, near but not perfect fidelity in that replication, and differential survival success in the generations of results of that replication. "Life" is just one place evolution can occur. But it is not required or assumed for it. Memes can evolve for example. They are not alive.

kelly1 wrote: »

If evolution is false, biological science comes to a dead-end because there is no scientific alternative to evolution.

Again not the point. The point is tat EVEN if it was false, it being false would not be evidence of a god. Because lack of evidence for proposition A is not itself evidence for proposition B. The entire Creationist movement is based on pretence of the opposite.

kelly1 wrote: »

If it can be shown that an intelligent agent is required to create life, then I think we have a good argument for God.

EXACTLY! IF you could show that THEN you would have evidence for a god. But bad, or even good, attempts to debunk evolution is not evidence of that. That is my point, you are almost getting it now!

kelly1 wrote: »

The "aliens did it" argument doesn't work.

Take that up with someone who presented that argument. Since I did not, no point in mentioning it here.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you know of anything less than a cell that would be considered "life"?

It was your claim/assertion. Do not ask me to substantiate it for you. You claimed it, you evidence it.

kelly1 wrote: »

But now long can RNA survive? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but I'm assuming it can't last long without some form or protection and something that would repair any damage done to it.

A pre-life substrate would have only to survive long enough to replicate. From what would it require protection? Certainly not the things that would eat it today, given they did not exist yet.

kelly1 wrote: »

Again I go back to the probability problem

Which is again not a problem until you drop the conclusion fallacy from it.

Even then however you have to then contend with the Anthropic principle that even if the rise of life is unlikely, the sheer number of planets and galaxies also mediate partially for that. Winning the Lotto might seem unlikely in other words, but if you enter it 5 million times in one week, that changes the probabilities somewhat drastically.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't believe science will ever

I tune out at this point. If you want to talk about the science that exists NOW we can do that together. If you want to imagine what it will, or will not, discover in your crystal ball of the future then you are on your own. You are struggling enough with understanding the evidence, arguments and science we do and do not have NOW. Let us not complicate your issues further by a rabbit hole of imaginary evidence and failures too, shall we?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I could be wrong but it seems to me our knowledge is growing rapidly in technology rather than science. e.g. when was the last great leap forward in physics? Was it not with General Relativity? I wouldn't call the discovery of the predicted Higgs Boson a great leap.

Likewise in life sciences, how much progress have we really made? From what I've read, the problems are becoming more difficult as our knowledge of cell structure and mechanisms increases.

In the life sciences there have been huge leaps. CRISPR is one that comes to mind not to mention documenting the human genome. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are also progressing at a staggering rate. A device like Alexa would have been pure sci-fi twenty years ago. While you might consider the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particularly big the work at CERN and the LHC are phenomenal.

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

I agree. Scientific knowledge, as a subset of all human knowledge, is and in all probability will always be, finite. It is however expanding, and rather than hitting a glass ceiling it is growing exponentially. Buckminster Fuller noted it was doubling century on century but that rate of change is accelerating rapidly. It seems probable that we will see greater than human artificial intelligence with a few decades, which will mean another order of magnitude increase. Still a fart in a hurricane at a universal level but I rather doubt there'll be much talk of ID at that point. From where I'm sitting it seems considerably more likely that we will make god in our own image than the reverse, but then I guess we always have.

I could be wrong but it seems to me our knowledge is growing rapidly in technology rather than science. e.g. when was the last great leap forward in physics? Was it not with General Relativity? I wouldn't call the discovery of the predicted Higgs Boson a great leap.

Likewise in life sciences, how much progress have we really made? From what I've read, the problems are becoming more difficult as our knowledge of cell structure and mechanisms increases.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

We can not assume science will ever come to complete knowledge

I agree. Scientific knowledge, as a subset of all human knowledge, is and in all probability will always be, finite. It is however expanding, and rather than hitting a glass ceiling it is growing exponentially. Buckminster Fuller noted it was doubling century on century but that rate of change is accelerating rapidly. It seems probable that we will see greater than human artificial intelligence with a few decades, which will mean another order of magnitude increase. Still a fart in a hurricane at a universal level but I rather doubt there'll be much talk of ID at that point. From where I'm sitting it seems considerably more likely that we will make god in our own image than the reverse, but then I guess we always have.

kelly1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fallacy involves you working backwards from a given event and declaring it is too unlikely for that event to have happened i that way. For example if you get 100 decks of cards and deal out all 5200 cards in a random order and then work out the probability of getting exactly THAT order of cards.... you will get a monumental result.

Sorry, not a very good analogy because 5200 cards in random order is nothing special and has no useful purpose. On the other hand, the order and structure of DNA and proteins is highly specific. If you get the order (or structure) wrong, the molecule is totally useless, it is not functional. In the case of cards in a random order, it's not like one particular order has special properties. All orders are useless, they serve no purpose.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fallacy comes from only imagining the blocks you can see in the Bridge however. You CAN build an arch bridge one block at a time if you place supporting blocks which you then remove later.

You really think somethings more complex than the cell existed and then it later simplified? How plausible is that??

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What you presented above as "the strongest argument" was a poor attempt to rebut Evolutionary Science.

We're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution assumes existing life, doesn't it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Let us imagine for one minute that you actually did that. You totally mathematically prove that evolution could simply not have happened as science currently believes it did.

If evolution is false, biological science comes to a dead-end because there is no scientific alternative to evolution.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is not remotely, for one moment, a single shred of an iota of evidence for a god. At the very most.... the VERY MOST.... it would be a signal that we still do not know how life came about, and we currently have no hypothesis with evidence for them.

If it can be shown that an intelligent agent is required to create life, then I think we have a good argument for God. The "aliens did it" argument doesn't work.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a MASSIVE assertion that science does not claim and, if true, would be a very interesting fact to add to science. So if you can substantiate it in any way, rather than simply assert it by fiat, it would be a useful move to make.

Do you know of anything less than a cell that would be considered "life"? Afaik, viruses don't meet all the criteria of a living organism.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But why would the "something that can replicate" also have to be "something that would be considered life"? After all the whole point of suggestions like the "RNA World" is to discuss a function pre-cursor to life. So by definition the functional replicator is something that would NOT "be considered life". So your constraint here is invalid, misleading and damaging.

But now long can RNA survive? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but I'm assuming it can't last long without some form or protection and something that would repair any damage done to it.

Again I go back to the probability problem that hundreds of specific proteins are required to build a cell. If say 300 distinct proteins are required, how could they possibly survive for long periods of time and come together in a small point in space and assemble into a functioning cell? It's like trying to build a house of cards in a storm.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All "life" would have needed to form is Evolution and Natural Selection.

But again, I'm talking about how life began. Life is required for evolution to occur.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is to say it does not actually provide ANY evidence for it's own claims and conclusions... that a designer exists. Rather they expect people to accept that conclusion based solely on their flapping and failed attempts to debunk the competing conclusion.

I do see where you're coming from but if you rule out the chance hypothesis, what are you left with? When you also have a cumulative case for design, that strengthens the case for God, IMO.

My own *opinion* is that science has hit a glass ceiling when it comes to cutting edge investigation. I don't believe science will ever discover the cause of the big-bang, or the reason for the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature, or the origin of life. We can not assume science will ever come to complete knowledge. I completely understand that invoking God puts an end to the scientific route but it's a possibility that should be admitted.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To pretend "This proves evolution false.... therefore god" is a god of the gaps fallacy, an argument from ignorance, and a "two conclusion fallacy" all rolled into one.

And also a very clear non-sequitur given all the other actual and potential creation myths and theories out there, which much like Christianity, have no supporting evidence. For example, staying with Douglas Adams

The Great Green Arkleseizure is the creator of the universe, as claimed by adherents of the faith on planet Viltvodle VI. The Jatravartids of this faith believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure's nose.

Humma Kavula is a missionary of the Great Green Arkleseizure religion on Viltvodle VI. He ends his sermons with a simple "Bless you".

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

According to the vid below, the probability of a single functional DNA strand forming randomly

Is this called the "conclusion fallacy"? I can not remember as it has been so long since I have corrected someone for using it on this or any forum that I have lost touch with the lingo.

Anyway let me explain the fallacy your video link has duped you with. So you can be angry at the video makers for lying to you when they likely know better.

The fallacy involves you working backwards from a given event and declaring it is too unlikely for that event to have happened i that way. For example if you get 100 decks of cards and deal out all 5200 cards in a random order and then work out the probability of getting exactly THAT order of cards.... you will get a monumental result.

The fallacy is based on misleading you that that result is somehow significant. With a random link of 5200 cards you realise it is not significant. With DNA it is the same thing however. The video causes you to be looking at the strands of DNA that built the first life on this planet and saying "Wow that is unlikely".

But they do not mention that there could have been any number of other perfectly functional sequences that would have resulted in life on this planet, which would have looked back going "wow that was unlikely!".

Douglas Adams coined a useful analogy for this fallacy. Imagine a puddle which magically becomes sentient and it looks at the hole it is in and thinks "This hole MUST have been made for me, for it fits my dimensions and therefore my requirements so precisely and accurately it could not have happened by chance!!!!".

The puddle of course misses the point that it formed to fit the hole, not the other way around, and it would have woken up in a hole of ANY shape making exactly the same fallacious error. You, or at least the video that is lying to you here, are the puddle.

kelly1 wrote: »

According to James Tour (organic chemist), the problem becomes practically insoluble because a single (simple) cell needs to be completely formed in order for it to survive and replicate.

This fallacy is one I am not sure there has ever been a name for. There probably is. However I used to call it the "Arch Bridge Fallacy". The reason being that if you look at a really impressive arch bridge you are given the impression it could not have been built laying one stone block at a time. At some point it would have collapsed under it's own weight.

The fallacy comes from only imagining the blocks you can see in the Bridge however. You CAN build an arch bridge one block at a time if you place supporting blocks which you then remove later.

The "cell needs to be completely formed" fallacy, or the ANYTHING needs to be completely formed fallacy (there are other things other than the cell that creationists like to play the same fallacy with, the one that jumps to mind is the mechanism of blood clotting, though there a few others I could name if you want. Creationists used to like using a mouse trap as an analogy for this until an actual Evolutionary Scientist not only explained the fallacy, but used a mouse trap to demonstrate their error. I never saw them use a mouse trap in their talks again after that.) usually misses the fact that you are looking at the cell/function as it is NOW and not seeing the support blocks that would have come and gone over it's evolutionary history.

kelly1 wrote: »

IMHO, the above is about the strongest argument I've come across.

The fallacy in play here also has a name I forget. It's the fallacy of assuming two conclusions and therefore presenting a rebuttal to one as evidence for the other. This is worth learning, it is rare that if you take two completely unsubstantiated claims and then rebut one.... that you have provided ANY evidence for the other.

What you presented above as "the strongest argument" was a poor attempt to rebut Evolutionary Science. Let us imagine for one minute that you actually did that. You totally mathematically prove that evolution could simply not have happened as science currently believes it did.

That is not remotely, for one moment, a single shred of an iota of evidence for a god. At the very most.... the VERY MOST.... it would be a signal that we still do not know how life came about, and we currently have no hypothesis with evidence for them.

To pretend "This proves evolution false.... therefore god" is a god of the gaps fallacy, an argument from ignorance, and a "two conclusion fallacy" all rolled into one.

kelly1 wrote: »

Life had to start with a minimum of a complete cell.

That is a MASSIVE assertion that science does not claim and, if true, would be a very interesting fact to add to science. So if you can substantiate it in any way, rather than simply assert it by fiat, it would be a useful move to make.

However I have not seen a single thing suggesting that claim is valid. So if you have anything to support it, please let us know. Preferably BEFORE you get noticed by the Nobel Prize Committee after which you are likely to forget the little people like us here.

kelly1 wrote: »

Ultimately, faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Circular nonsense. It is a crass move to make belief in an asserted conclusion be predicated on belief in the conclusion. It ranks somewhere on the level of "I know you are, but what am I?" in terms of rhetorical quality to be honest.

But I have long suggested that as a useful definition of the word "faith". Many people on this very forum have suggested definitions of the word "faith" like "believe without evidence" or even "belief in spite of the evidence".

My own definition has often been "Faith is using the conclusion that something is true as the focal part of the evidence that something is true". Or put another way.... the evidence for a god only works if you pre-suppose the conclusion that it works.

kelly1 wrote: »

Cells are the fundamental units of life. Do you know of anything less that can survive long enough to replicate? Something that would be considered life?

There is an interesting and rather telling constraint you are putting on your question there which I am unsure from your posts so far is an error you are making, or an intentional dishonest move to confound. I am erring so far towards the former as you do not yet exude the dishonesty creationists have in the past. So I am going to assume good faith on it here.

But why would the "something that can replicate" also have to be "something that would be considered life"? After all the whole point of suggestions like the "RNA World" is to discuss a function pre-cursor to life. So by definition the functional replicator is something that would NOT "be considered life". So your constraint here is invalid, misleading and damaging.

All "life" would have needed to form is Evolution and Natural Selection. And as a very devout Catholic Biology Scientist once pointed out you functionally only need very very basic things for Evolution and Natural Selection to occur. Which are:

1) Something that replicates at all.
2) The replication exhibits near, but not perfect, fidelity.
3) There is some level of differential success in the variants produced in each Generation.

kelly1 wrote: »

Just what is unscientific about ID?

Creationism.... what it is actually called before they very cynical and transparent attempt to rebrand as ID to get around a high court order in the States.... is unscientific mainly because of the "two conclusion fallacy" I described above.

That is to say it does not actually provide ANY evidence for it's own claims and conclusions... that a designer exists. Rather they expect people to accept that conclusion based solely on their flapping and failed attempts to debunk the competing conclusion.

And that is NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. If you have no evidence for your claim in science, then you do not often manufacture evidence by attacking someone else's claims in science. You could 100% debunk and destroy someone else's claim in science more completely than anything has ever been debunked in science before.... and your own claim will STILL be unsubstantiated when the dust settles.

So as long as they play the "Evolution is false, therefore god" move they are and will remain to be entirely unscientific in their approach to their own claims.

Further to this however....

kelly1 wrote: »

The only difference between ID and "mainstream" Darwinian science is that both groups come to different conclusions based on their observations.

... there are other differences. For example "prediction" is a huge thing in science. You make theories that make predictions and you go and test if those predictions are true. This is being done, and has been done, in Evolutionary Science in spades. I can regale you with beautiful examples at the microscopic and macroscopic level if you wish.

I am unaware of a single "testable prediction" made by Creationism however. So again: Not really science.

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh I think the whole atheist trend that is happening now will turn out to be just a phase we go through..

So much of it is like listening to a disgruntled 15 year old..

There has been 30 thousand different god worshipped since since time began all different from each other, You'd have to be insane and certified to think your one is "the REAL" one ,

There is no god

kelly1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, it's like saying that "Peptides can form without amino acids" and then showing it in a peer reviewed scientific paper (here is the original paper).

When they say "Peptides can form", what they actually mean is that peptides *can be formed/synthesized* (in a lab under the agency of intelligent chemists). Correct?

Mark Hamill

ForestFire wrote: »

Why use words like fantasy/supernatural? I'm sure things like black holes, and quarks where fantasy at some stage?

Because it is fantasy, it is completely unfalsifiable. Black holes and quarks etc were, at some point, just hypotheticals to explain some observations, but they were testable and falsifiable and so became scientific theories which reliably explained those observations. ID is not falsifiable and explains nothing because, again and to be clear, ID is creationism.

Mark Hamill

ForestFire wrote: »

If we started every science discovery, with the pre requisite that it must be testable or abondon it immediately, then many discoveries, that take years to complete, would not have happened.

Actually, they only happened because they were testable. If they weren't in some way testable, then there would be no way of determining if any proposed mechanism was true. Falsifiability is absolutely necessary for science to work.

TeaBagMania

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How do you convince people god exists?

Mark Hamill

ForestFire wrote: »

Okay but every scientific idea or hypothesis starts with little or no evidence, and this is what needs to be done to prove it.

ID Is still at this stage and not proven, but to say you started with an assumption, then everything later is invalid is not correct.

Did Newton not start with an assumption of a force "pulling" the apple to his head and then whet on to collect the evidence, to finally prove the law of gravity?

(I must confess(to somebody?) I only stumbled in here and have not read the entire thread)

Start with this post. ID is back door creationism and therefore nonsense.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Looking at that article Mark, it says "Peptides can form without amino acids". That's a bit like the 3rd rung on a ladder with a million steps.

No, it's like saying that "Peptides can form without amino acids" and then showing it in a peer reviewed scientific paper (here is the original paper).
You pretend that ID is science, but when science is presented to show that your premise is wrong you just pretend nothing is said and just decry "irreducible complexity" some more.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is James Tour stating anything incorrect in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

How should I know, I haven't watched it and I'm not inclined to waste my time doing so. Break it down for me and I will respond to your post, but only if you concede the above point about the peptides paper you have decided to ignore.

robindch

ForestFire wrote: »

[...] the concept of ID, to date is not proven [...]

ID is, and will remain, unproven as it was specifically designed to be unprovable, or undemonstratable, because the deity it was seeking to demonstrate is likewise undemonstratable.

Can't think of a purer form of argument from ignorance than ID.

smacl

Odhinn wrote: »

"Fantasy" is somewhat dismissive

Dismissive perhaps, but seeing as we're doing definitions;

Merriam Webster wrote:

Definition of fantasy (Entry 1 of 3)
1: the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need
an object of fantasy
also : a mental image or a series of mental images (such as a daydream) so created
sexual fantasies
2: a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived:such as
a: a chimerical or fantastic notion
His plans are pure fantasy.
b: imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters
spent the summer reading fantasy
— called also fantasy fiction
c: FANTASIA sense 1
the organ fantasy of Johannes Brahms
d: a fanciful design or invention
a fantasy of delicate tracery
3: FANCY
especially : the free play of creative imagination

In my opinion worshipping one or many deities meets the highlighted criteria pretty well. While you might consider it derogatory, my experience has been that that many, if not most, theists consider the worship of a god other than their own god much the same way.

Odhinn

ForestFire wrote: »

Why use words like fantasy/supernatural? ..............

"Fantasy" is somewhat dismissive, however 'supernatural' -

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

There's no evidence for the supernatural, at all, in any way shape or form. It covers everything from God(s) to mediums and ouija boards. Same with psychics and alien abductions.

smacl

ForestFire wrote: »

Why use words like fantasy/supernatural? I'm sure things like black holes, and quarks where fantasy at some stage?

The existence of black holes and quarks were speculation in the past. This speculation was followed by investigation, experiment and observation that provided reasonably robust evidence to suggest they do exist. There was no assumption of truth until such time as that truth was evidenced. Asserting that something which is speculative and not evidenced is true, e.g. any given supernatural creation myth of which there are many, is engaging in delusional fantasy. Stating something is hypothetically true is more reasonable, but if there is no supporting evidence found following an exhaustive search over a protracted period of time we assume the hypothesis is most probably false. If we find strong contrary evidence than we know our hypothesis is false. So for example, biblical stories about our species being directly descended from a single couple, the age of the planet numbering in the thousands of years and the notion you can put a breeding pair of every earth dwelling animal on a large wooden boat are contradicted by what we now know about genetics, biology and even basic mechanics. As such, it is reasonable to refer to such stories as supernatural fantasy. More kindly perhaps, you could describe them as allegory rather than literal truth but it amounts to much the same thing.

More modern creation myths, such as our universe being a large simulation, are slightly more robust than ancient religious creation myths as they don't make statements that are demonstrably false. At the same time, until such time as they're evidenced, they remain speculative fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I think imagining what might be is a crucially important part of science and humanity in general. Where I take exception is where this fantasy is taught as unquestionably true as a mandatory part of our school curriculum.

Panrich

ForestFire wrote: »

Why use words like fantasy/supernatural? I'm sure things like black holes, and quarks where fantasy at some stage? I am as much open to it all being random, as it being designed, or a simulation, but let's go back to the primary question which I think is...

How was the universe created?

- I think we all agree, it came into existence at some point?
- We probably agree it happen at, or quite close to, the big bang, which we don't fully understand yet?
- We know time and space exist in our universe, but we don't know if it exists outside of it, or where our universe is, and if there are other universes or other things outside our universe.

So what are the options for its creation, let's keep an open mind and list them...
Please feel free to rework, add to the list or re-categorise.

1) It happen on impulse for some unknown reason and everything after this point is purely random?

2) It was started by someone or something, with or without initial rules/design at the big bang?

3) it's a simulation, the big bang is simply the memory loading from ROM to RAM, possible LPDDR9^45 in some quantum computer.

4) the big bang did not really happen, someone put it as it is say 5000 to 5000000 years ago, with most thins close to what we have now. (I guess this is most people's understanding of the God theory that often debunked? But could point 2 also be?)

Remember these are just some reasonable hypothesis on how it could happen, we can look at the probability of each later, or the evidence for each one if there is any or not. I'm just interested to know what people think are the possibilities and do you think there is more than 1?

You’re building a bridge across too wide a chasm here.

It is true that the scientific understanding around the Big Bang and the start of the universe is not very well developed or understood.

Given that, our energies are best directed to furthering our understanding of the actual events that occurred at or very close to the Big Bang rather than concern ourselves with the questions that you pose.

Once we understand how our universe came about in a more coherent way, the answers as to why it was formed can then be addressed in a more meaningful way.

ForestFire

smacl wrote: »

It is not that ID is not proven, it is that it is entirely unsupported speculation deriving from the bias of what one religion would like to be true. If analogies are what you're after it is reminiscent of a young kid trying to manipulate objects using the Force after watching a Star wars movie. That we don't as yet fully understand the process by which life began on this planet does not make substituting our best informed position with some random fantasy any way reasonable.

Why use words like fantasy/supernatural? I'm sure things like black holes, and quarks where fantasy at some stage? I am as much open to it all being random, as it being designed, or a simulation, but let's go back to the primary question which I think is...

How was the universe created?

- I think we all agree, it came into existence at some point?
- We probably agree it happen at, or quite close to, the big bang, which we don't fully understand yet?
- We know time and space exist in our universe, but we don't know if it exists outside of it, or where our universe is, and if there are other universes or other things outside our universe.

So what are the options for its creation, let's keep an open mind and list them...
Please feel free to rework, add to the list or re-categorise.

1) It happen on impulse for some unknown reason and everything after this point is purely random?

2) It was started by someone or something, with or without initial rules/design at the big bang?

3) it's a simulation, the big bang is simply the memory loading from ROM to RAM, possible LPDDR9^45 in some quantum computer.

4) the big bang did not really happen, someone put it as it is say 5000 to 5000000 years ago, with most thins close to what we have now. (I guess this is most people's understanding of the God theory that often debunked? But could point 2 also be?)

Remember these are just some reasonable hypothesis on how it could happen, we can look at the probability of each later, or the evidence for each one if there is any or not. I'm just interested to know what people think are the possibilities and do you think there is more than 1?

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

It is not that ID is not proven, it is that it is entirely unsupported speculation deriving from the bias of what one religion would like to be true. If analogies are what you're after it is reminiscent of a young kid trying to manipulate objects using the Force after watching a Star wars movie. That we don't as yet fully understand the process by which life began on this planet does not make substituting our best informed position with some random fantasy any way reasonable.

Indeed. There's no evidence whatsoever for "supernatural" phenomena full stop, let alone any sort of God or Gods.

smacl

ForestFire wrote: »

Again I will say firstly, I do not believe ID is proven in anyway to date and therefore a God is not proven. But for for pure science people here...

It is not that ID is not proven, it is that it is entirely unsupported speculation deriving from the bias of what one religion would like to be true. If analogies are what you're after it is reminiscent of a young kid trying to manipulate objects using the Force after watching a Star wars movie. That we don't as yet fully understand the process by which life began on this planet does not make substituting our best informed position with some random fantasy any way reasonable.