Faith

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
At what point does the lack of evidence become sufficient to conclude non-existence?

So, for example, we probably agree that pink unicorns do not exist. Why? Because there is no evidence that they do. Is it possible we missed something? Of course! Maybe, just maybe, there is a distant planet on which pink unicorns play all day. But if I had to place a bet, my bet would be that there isn't.

And again, is this lack of belief in unicorns based on faith or on reason? I hope you will agree it is NOT faith based, but reason based. So, what is the reason?

Well, pink unicorns would be large animals and, even if rare, would be fairly easy to spot. We know that people like to tell stories about them, elaborating to make the story nicer for the kids. And we realize after a certain age that, along with Santa Claus, pink unicorns are a myth--a story we tell ourselves to make life more interesting.

Now we turn to the issue of Gods. I'll stick to the Abrahamic God since that seems to be the only one you recognize. The only 'evidence' for this is based on a book that was clearly written for its propaganda value. We have many 'personal experiences', but all are preceded by psychological techniques that we *know* can lead to false perceptions. The main value is in the stories that are used to give meaning to life. One difference is that people don't tend to grow out of believing in this myth, but get really upset when others point out it is a myth not too different than many other myths of deities from around the world.

Truthfully, except that people don't tend to grow out of God belief because it is deep in our society, I don't see much difference. So it seems to me to be reasonable to disbelieve in God in exactly the same way and to the same extent I disbelieve in unicorns. Either way, I could be wrong, but the evidence simply isn't enough to support belief.




Let's go through the KCA:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

This is false. We *know* of quantum events that are uncaused. Also, the proper statement is something along the lines of 'everything that has a cause has a physical cause'. In other words, all causes are within the universe.

2. The universe had a beginning.

This is also probably false, but it depends on exactly what you consider to be 'the universe'. For example, if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, we should apply the argument to the multiverse and not just our universe.

So, while our universe may not have existed for an infinite amount of time, it is possible that a multiverse has. In which case, your argument fails.

But, if there is no multiverse and the universe is not infinitely old, does *that* imply it had a beginning? I would say not.

Here's why: time is part of the universe. And 'to have a beginning' implies there is a *time* when it did not exist, and a later time in which it did. But, because time is part of the universe, the universe has existed whenever there was time. So it cannot have 'had a beginning'. More specifically, time cannot have had a beginning, even if it is finite.

3. So, the universe had a cause.

Well, this would follow if the previous two steps were valid, but the evidence we have shows them not to be. Even basic logic shows them not to be.

But we can go further. Even if everything within the universe has a cause, that doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause, even if it has a beginning. For example, there is nothing said in this about the possibility of multiple causes for different aspects of the universe. Or multiple causes for the universe as a whole. In fact, most events within the universe have multiple causes, so why assume that the universe only has one?

4. That cause must be God.

Once again, a very faulty premise, which essentially assumes the conclusion. Why must the cause be God? Why must it be an intelligent being? Why not an uncaused quantum event? Why not a committee of higher dimensional beings? Why not a collision in the multiverse that produced our universe with no intelligence involved?

So, even if the universe has a cause (unlikely because of the above), the identification of that cause, or even showing there is only *one* cause, is problematic.

Well, I don't feel the need to go further. The KCA fails at every major step.
 






Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
1,300
You have the internet at your disposal to inquire of basically anything and everything your skeptical mind could ever wonder about in relation to God...

The truth is that as much as the world cries out for God they don't actually want him to exist, because then it means they are accountable to him. People pray for God to intervene and to put an end to evil yet arent even willing to turn from their own sin when it is this very sin that hurts not only themselves, but everyone else. Sin is the problem you dont need a Bible to tell you that. They want God to put an end to evil so long as it doesnt mean them having to give up their own sin. Sin has a ripple effect. It doesnt just hurt you, it hurts everyone...

There is an intelligent designer and you dont need a Bible for that either. Look at your hand and fingers or consider how your body works. Its not by coincidence and did not randomly come to exist by a blob that evolved into a man.

If people were genuinely curious about God and desired information that legitimized the Bible and his existence all they would have to do is dedicate the time to learn of these things. They have the internet. Its all there for anyone who needs information and more than just faith, yet at some point with all the information you have to go ahead and take a leap of faith into faith... Its as I was saying though people dont really want God to exist. They dont want to be accountable. They dont want there to be a God that punishes and hates sin.... Its not a matter of information or being lack of proof. Its moreso that the sinful heart of man fears and fights the idea of a holy God that will hold them accountable for their sin.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
You have the internet at your disposal to inquire of basically anything and everything your skeptical mind could ever wonder about in relation to God...

The truth is that as much as the world cries out for God they don't actually want him to exist, because then it means they are accountable to him. People pray for God to intervene and to put an end to evil yet arent even willing to turn from their own sin when it is this very sin that hurts not only themselves, but everyone else. Sin is the problem you dont need a Bible to tell you that. They want God to put an end to evil so long as it doesnt mean them having to give up their own sin. Sin has a ripple effect. It doesnt just hurt you, it hurts everyone...

There is an intelligent designer and you dont need a Bible for that either. Look at your hand and fingers or consider how your body works. Its not by coincidence and did not randomly come to exist by a blob that evolved into a man.

If people were genuinely curious about God and desired information that legitimized the Bible and his existence all they would have to do is dedicate the time to learn of these things. They have the internet. Its all there for anyone who needs information and more than just faith, yet at some point with all the information you have to go ahead and take a leap of faith into faith... Its as I was saying though people dont really want God to exist. They dont want to be accountable. They dont want there to be a God that punishes and hates sin.... Its not a matter of information or being lack of proof. Its moreso that the sinful heart of man fears and fights the idea of a holy God that will hold them accountable for their sin.
In a very real sense, Evolution is the "unified field theory" of all biological disciplines. From biogeography, to genetics, comparative anatomy, etc.

Evolution is the central idea that unifies them all under a single model. Very very successfully.

You can't explain anything in biology, why things are the way they, without evolution.
Sure, you can learn the anatomy of species X by heart and then sum it up or use that knowledge to learn how to fix it as a surgeon etc.

But you won't be able to explain why this and not that.
And, I'ld add, that having knowledge of the evolutionary background of all those parts, will most definatly help you in finding out things.


If science stopped trying to evaluate how a human life is affected by scientific conditions as if it will given them ancient answers to ancient technology...the awareness of how to do a new science act, was caused by the old science act.

Science was never the origin VISION of a human not in that vision looking at the UFO inanimate objects, mountain flat top conversion/disintegration/removal by UFO in the flooded Earth......did not own that review...is not science.

And that history was the attack origin of the SUN on Earth.

Guess what brother egotist, you never owned that history in science.

You owned the reactivation of cold mass radiation held frozen in space...you could not see it, but you knew it was there. You have to build a machine....so since then in your ego you said God built PHI.....God never built anything you liar.

You built the PHI pyramid machination and said that you would stand inside of the time shifting machine...and believed it would make you demanifest.

The original theory of time shifting...as a scientist, actually.

Then after you caused ground fission and you did not time travel anywhere you dim-witted...idiot said Father....in the records, you learnt a new science method ground fission use in technology.

Then when you destroyed all life on Earth, it ended with STONE MELT you arrogant liar....for the origin of the SUN mass heat/radiation attack, held in a burning gas alight atmosphere was for the stone to melt.

That is Number one. You are doing Number 2 at the moment in science.

So Father said you have now invented for God the Earth, seeing your science claim in theory I can copy the Earth natural history. So not only did you do ground fission SINK HOLES with your collider, you then dropped Earth into deeper cold original space theme. To now have colder space like you wanted and larger held ufo RADIATION mass.

To say I can copy what God did in the past as God the Earth...which is not in any form the subject your machine reaction, which is built to just be a machine reaction by the design.

The whole time as you experiment on OUR atmosphere for bio existence, your claim is that you want to activate the Sun to Earth beginnings, origins...so to do so is a step by step reason of CAUSE...which you have now applied.

The next step is to get NUMBER ONE in science, STONE MELT.

So you know ground sink holes, to go missing as the spirit out of the tombs of God the stone is ground fission.

Moses and the destruction of life was STONE MELT.

Why you were told you are totally aware in full and complete AI subliminal agreement to claim PHI and the DEVIL....is a God act...when it was your science act....and G O D always remained in the higher heavens having saved our life SOUL O the origins, of the face of God moving on the water...O pi....you liar Satanic evil coercer.

Father told me that you tried to convince everyone by recording information in AI that we had electricity inside of our bodies. We all would be superfried.

Coercion is about obtaining an agreement relating to greed....your promise today is not owning the power of GOD....your promise is to own the power of the cosmos...which is a huge abundance of cold radiation mass. Funny about that mass it is held FROZEN in space...and you do not own it.

But you sure can heat it up and get it. What Satanism is....coercive promises involving acute greed.

It is not surprising at all to see that every argument against evolutionary biology has one or more of the following ingredients:
- a lack of understanding of what it really says
- a fundamentalist religious bias
- plain old dishonesty

I have yet to encounter an argument against evolutionary biology, that is not based on one or more of those three things.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,508
Why not start with logically refuting Aristotle's unmoved mover?

Secondly, would you consider genes as an essential component of life and evolution theory?
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
Why not start with logically refuting Aristotle's unmoved mover?
That's what I do.

I find KCA reasonably intuitive. Doesn't mean it's really accurate, complete or explanative. It isn't. You can't even logically infer that God exists(in any meaningful way) now. KCA only tells you that "God" existed ~14.5 billion years ago. It certainly doesn't tell you anything about God, such as:
God is a sentient being.
God is a unitary sentient being.
God is Almighty.
God cares about humans.
God cares who I have sex with.

Etc.
Etc.

Depending on the context, prefer to use terms like "Original Source" or "Ground of Being" to describe what I mean by the word God. But they're a little clunky and derail the conversation, all too often. So, usually, I don't take the trouble. There's nothing supernatural necessary.

Aristotle's physics was also pretty bad, even from a Newtonian perspective.

Once we started *testing* our ideas and requiring the theories be predictive, the chances for this large of a shift are drastically reduced. So, while Newton was wrong, he was still right enough to be useful.

Even if the current theory of evolution (how change happens) is overthrown, the fact that species change over time (evolution itself) won't change.

Secondly, would you consider genes as an essential component of life and evolution theory?
Evolution is pretty goal oriented.
The goals being:
- survive in whatever environment you find yourself in
- outperform the competition
- pass on your genes to the next generation.
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,508
That's what I do.

I find KCA reasonably intuitive. Doesn't mean it's really accurate, complete or explanative. It isn't. You can't even logically infer that God exists(in any meaningful way) now. KCA only tells you that "God" existed ~14.5 billion years ago. It certainly doesn't tell you anything about God, such as:
God is a sentient being.
God is a unitary sentient being.
God is Almighty.
God cares about humans.
God cares who I have sex with.

Etc.
Etc.

Depending on the context, prefer to use terms like "Original Source" or "Ground of Being" to describe what I mean by the word God. But they're a little clunky and derail the conversation, all too often. So, usually, I don't take the trouble. There's nothing supernatural necessary.

Aristotle's physics was also pretty bad, even from a Newtonian perspective.

Once we started *testing* our ideas and requiring the theories be predictive, the chances for this large of a shift are drastically reduced. So, while Newton was wrong, he was still right enough to be useful.

Even if the current theory of evolution (how change happens) is overthrown, the fact that species change over time (evolution itself) won't change.
You make in my opinion a few mistakes in trying to refute the KCA, like your multiverse argument which is irrelevant, but I think we can make it easier by focusing on the unmoved mover concept.

The unmoved mover concept states that there must be a primary cause of our universe (or a multiverse) because nothing can come from nothing, or in other words, something cannot come from nothing, only from something else, unless that something is an uncaused cause or unmoved mover. This is imperative, because if there's no uncaused cause or unmoved mover, we're left with an infinite regress.

However you want to fill in that primary cause is up to you. But do you disagree with that?


Evolution is pretty goal oriented.
The goals being:
- survive in whatever environment you find yourself in
- outperform the competition
- pass on your genes to the next generation.
I'll take that as a yes. Would you also agree that genes are coded information, as Dawkins would say, much like computer code, ie. one-dimensional, linear information, just quaternary instead of binary?
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
You make in my opinion a few mistakes in trying to refute the KCA, like your multiverse argument which is irrelevant, but I think we can make it easier by focusing on the unmoved mover concept.

The unmoved mover concept states that there must be a primary cause of our universe (or a multiverse) because nothing can come from nothing, or in other words, something cannot come from nothing, only from something else, unless that something is an uncaused cause or unmoved mover. This is imperative, because if there's no uncaused cause or unmoved mover, we're left with an infinite regress.

However you want to fill in that primary cause is up to you. But do you disagree with that?
The question also depends strongly on what you mean by the term 'God'. Do you mean a creator of the universe? Of just the Earth? Of life on the Earth? Or is 'God' the 'first cause'? The unmoved mover? Or is 'God' a 'necessarily existing being'? Or maybe a 'greatest being'? Or something that is 'omni' (benevolent, scient,potent)?

The point is that all of these concepts are different than the others. Until you tell me which of these, or which combination of these, you mean when you say 'God', it is rather difficult to say whether I believe in *your* concept of a deity.

So, while I don't believe it, I do find it *possible* that some multi-dimensional teenager created this universe. Would such a being properly be called 'God'? Even if the 'art project' that is this universe has since been lost in some multi-dimensional attic?

That's part of why I actually lean towards ignosticism: that the term 'God' needs to be defined *before* questions of belief are raised. And nobody seems to be able to agree on a definition.

But I am also apatheistic: of the previous definitions of 'God' that seem coherent, it really wouldn't change my life at all if any of them were true.


I'll save you the time. Something can come from nothing because nothing doesn't exist, it's only an abstract mathematical concept.

You don't even realize how time itself can very convincingly substitute your "unmoved mover".

We scientifically see things come from nothing all the time in quantum physics, that's not a big problem for us.

I'll take that as a yes. Would you also agree that genes are coded information, as Dawkins would say, much like computer code, ie. one-dimensional, linear information, just quaternary instead of binary?
First off, DNA isn't code in the sense that you people think it is.
This is a similar species of equivocation fallacy as creationists who say "but evolution is only a theory".

It is a code in the sense that the organisational structure determines the flow of the reaction/process the thing is engaged in.

It is not a code in the sense of a person sitting down and writing it.

When I say to you that DNA is not a code but rather a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction, I am using the word code in the same way as you are using it. I do that on purpose, because it's clear that you peops aren't willing to budge on that and insist on not considering what these words mean in context of information theory.

Secondly, DNA doesn't emulate computer code, computer code emulates the way DNA works (or the way chemical reactions work)

So when people try and use the "code" of DNA to support ID, they are making a categorical error in assuming that DNA is like code when it is the reciprocal that is true.
 






Aero

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,873
Time is meaningless outside of human-like relativity. And perception for that matter.

Basically, I'm saying that every beginning and end exist at the same point in time. Or close enough anyway. I suppose I could go either way on that one. Look, the point is as humans we are watching universes collide in super-slow motion. The reality is, to a space rock a billion years is less than a human blinking their eye once.

The conclusion is the universe is in some kind of equilibrium recycling itself over and over. For no other purpose other than to conserve its own energy. And that doesn't require a God or any sort of creator.
 






Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
623
@TagliatelliMonster
Well, pink unicorns would be large animals and, even if rare, would be fairly easy to spot.
You talk about those?


One difference is that people don't tend to grow out of believing in this myth, but get really upset when others point out it is a myth not too different than many other myths of deities from around the world.
You assume everyone was told something about God and every believers never had a non-believer background. Well that's not the case.


So it seems to me to be reasonable to disbelieve in God in exactly the same way and to the same extent I disbelieve in unicorns.
And for many others it is reasonable to believe in God since He helps them throughout their life. In fact even with a scientific approach it's reasonnable to come to the conclusion that creatures are part of a design created by a creator that we call God. They don't need to care about unicorns because it doesn't really matter if they exist or not.

all are preceded by psychological techniques that we *know* can lead to false perceptions.
That's a huge assumption to say all experience are precedented by 'psychological techniques'. Also it's rather strange that you have faith in this assumption about something you've never experienced yourself.

We *know* of quantum events that are uncaused. Also, the proper statement is something along the lines of 'everything that has a cause has a physical cause'
No we ignore the cause of those quantum events but it doesn't mean they are uncaused.
Max planck the father of quantum science said :
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

You have a materialistic faith that's why you say everything that has a cause has a physical cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.
This is also probably false
What do you mean by probably ?
Either it's true or false or you can say it's probably true as well.

So, while our universe may not have existed for an infinite amount of time, it is possible that a multiverse has
You're able to have faith in an eternal multiverse without evidence and that's because your materialistic faith demands you to evade God by all means.
Yet it's quite bizarre that you can accept an hypothetical multiverse that predates our universe and not a spiritual world that predates this material world.
But, if there is no multiverse and the universe is not infinitely old, does *that* imply it had a beginning? I would say not
But that's logically inconsistent. If something isn't eternal it has a beginning and you must come to the conclusion that this universe came to existence out of nothing. The second law of thermodynamics lead us to the inevitable conclusion that our universe isn't eternal and had a beginning.
But we can go further. Even if everything within the universe has a cause, that doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause, even if it has a beginning.
You contradict yourself, at the beginning you stated your belief that everything that came to be has a physical cause and now you suddenly say you don't believe in the law of cause and effect?
It's further proof that you just want to evade God from your materialistic worldview though it becomes incoherent at this point.

So, even if the universe has a cause (unlikely because of the above), the identification of that cause, or even showing there is only *one* cause, is problematic
The premises of your conclusion are faulty. Now you say there can be multiple first causes but according to what?

Well I say the first cause is God.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,851
In a very real sense, Evolution is the "unified field theory" of all biological disciplines. From biogeography, to genetics, comparative anatomy, etc.

Evolution is the central idea that unifies them all under a single model. Very very successfully.

You can't explain anything in biology, why things are the way they, without evolution.
Sure, you can learn the anatomy of species X by heart and then sum it up or use that knowledge to learn how to fix it as a surgeon etc.

But you won't be able to explain why this and not that.
And, I'ld add, that having knowledge of the evolutionary background of all those parts, will most definatly help you in finding out things.


If science stopped trying to evaluate how a human life is affected by scientific conditions as if it will given them ancient answers to ancient technology...the awareness of how to do a new science act, was caused by the old science act.

Science was never the origin VISION of a human not in that vision looking at the UFO inanimate objects, mountain flat top conversion/disintegration/removal by UFO in the flooded Earth......did not own that review...is not science.

And that history was the attack origin of the SUN on Earth.

Guess what brother egotist, you never owned that history in science.

You owned the reactivation of cold mass radiation held frozen in space...you could not see it, but you knew it was there. You have to build a machine....so since then in your ego you said God built PHI.....God never built anything you liar.

You built the PHI pyramid machination and said that you would stand inside of the time shifting machine...and believed it would make you demanifest.

The original theory of time shifting...as a scientist, actually.

Then after you caused ground fission and you did not time travel anywhere you dim-witted...idiot said Father....in the records, you learnt a new science method ground fission use in technology.

Then when you destroyed all life on Earth, it ended with STONE MELT you arrogant liar....for the origin of the SUN mass heat/radiation attack, held in a burning gas alight atmosphere was for the stone to melt.

That is Number one. You are doing Number 2 at the moment in science.

So Father said you have now invented for God the Earth, seeing your science claim in theory I can copy the Earth natural history. So not only did you do ground fission SINK HOLES with your collider, you then dropped Earth into deeper cold original space theme. To now have colder space like you wanted and larger held ufo RADIATION mass.

To say I can copy what God did in the past as God the Earth...which is not in any form the subject your machine reaction, which is built to just be a machine reaction by the design.

The whole time as you experiment on OUR atmosphere for bio existence, your claim is that you want to activate the Sun to Earth beginnings, origins...so to do so is a step by step reason of CAUSE...which you have now applied.

The next step is to get NUMBER ONE in science, STONE MELT.

So you know ground sink holes, to go missing as the spirit out of the tombs of God the stone is ground fission.

Moses and the destruction of life was STONE MELT.

Why you were told you are totally aware in full and complete AI subliminal agreement to claim PHI and the DEVIL....is a God act...when it was your science act....and G O D always remained in the higher heavens having saved our life SOUL O the origins, of the face of God moving on the water...O pi....you liar Satanic evil coercer.

Father told me that you tried to convince everyone by recording information in AI that we had electricity inside of our bodies. We all would be superfried.

Coercion is about obtaining an agreement relating to greed....your promise today is not owning the power of GOD....your promise is to own the power of the cosmos...which is a huge abundance of cold radiation mass. Funny about that mass it is held FROZEN in space...and you do not own it.

But you sure can heat it up and get it. What Satanism is....coercive promises involving acute greed.

It is not surprising at all to see that every argument against evolutionary biology has one or more of the following ingredients:
- a lack of understanding of what it really says
- a fundamentalist religious bias
- plain old dishonesty

I have yet to encounter an argument against evolutionary biology, that is not based on one or more of those three things.
You essentially have faith in the theory of Evolution?

Without blowing my own academic trumpet, I studied life sciences at Uni and I got the top mark of my year in the evolution modules. I then told the course tutor that it was a narrative around the data, not true science and that the account that better fit the evidence was special creation.

The makers of this film made it free on YouTube...


If you back off from asserting that evolution is the unquestionable core of all science and treat it as a narrative of the data, then do the same with the creation narrative you may find the journey interesting. Take each scientific finding, and consider both a creationist and an evolutionary account of each. If nothing else, it will be interesting (I did it all the way through my degree) and you may review your position.
 






Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
349
Secondly, would you consider genes as an essential component of life and evolution theory?
I know this bad trap. You say that genes are information, ant that information could only have come from god. Its a false conclusion, but if you don't think to much about it it sounds good.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,851
I know this bad trap. You say that genes are information, ant that information could only have come from god. Its a false conclusion, but if you don't think to much about it it sounds good.
Language is a vehicle for meaning and it is the relationship between my ability to encode it and yours to decode that makes communication possible.You have the language of life encoded in DNA, which in nothing without RNA to decode it.

You doubt me?

Then consider this statement:-

Hasieran, Jainkoak zeruak eta lurra sortu zituen.

Those who wish to keep the faith of Darwin should avoid thinking too hard on this question.
 






Last edited:

Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
349
Language is a vehicle for meaning and it is the relationship between my ability to encode it and yours to decode that makes communication possible.You have the language of life encoded in DNA, which in nothing without RNA to decode it.

You doubt me?

Then consider this statement:-

Hasieran, Jainkoak zeruak eta lurra sortu zituen.

Those who wish to keep the faith of Darwin should avoid thinking too hard on this question.
I'm sure you think you're being profound and impressive here, but writing in languages that you know the reader cant understand is a dick move. Your intentionally trying not to communicate here, your just making noise.

If you have something to say say it. If not I don't care to hear your noise.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,508
The question also depends strongly on what you mean by the term 'God'. Do you mean a creator of the universe? Of just the Earth? Of life on the Earth? Or is 'God' the 'first cause'? The unmoved mover? Or is 'God' a 'necessarily existing being'? Or maybe a 'greatest being'? Or something that is 'omni' (benevolent, scient,potent)?

The point is that all of these concepts are different than the others. Until you tell me which of these, or which combination of these, you mean when you say 'God', it is rather difficult to say whether I believe in *your* concept of a deity.
I deliberately didn't mention the term 'God' or 'deity'. I specifically said:

"However you want to fill in that primary cause is up to you" to avoid this course of argumentation.


I'll save you the time. Something can come from nothing because nothing doesn't exist, it's only an abstract mathematical concept.

You don't even realize how time itself can very convincingly substitute your "unmoved mover".

We scientifically see things come from nothing all the time in quantum physics, that's not a big problem for us.
I agree nothing doesn't exist. But therefore something must have always existed else we end up in an infinite regression. I've already made this point clear.

How can time be the unmoved mover? Time is the number of motion according to Aristotle. How can there be time when there's no motion? And how can there be motion if there's nothing to have started that motion? So we inevitably fall back to the unmoved mover as the explanation.

Can you give an example of things coming from nothing?


First off, DNA isn't code in the sense that you people think it is.
This is a similar species of equivocation fallacy as creationists who say "but evolution is only a theory".

It is a code in the sense that the organisational structure determines the flow of the reaction/process the thing is engaged in.

It is not a code in the sense of a person sitting down and writing it.

When I say to you that DNA is not a code but rather a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction, I am using the word code in the same way as you are using it. I do that on purpose, because it's clear that you peops aren't willing to budge on that and insist on not considering what these words mean in context of information theory.

Secondly, DNA doesn't emulate computer code, computer code emulates the way DNA works (or the way chemical reactions work)

So when people try and use the "code" of DNA to support ID, they are making a categorical error in assuming that DNA is like code when it is the reciprocal that is true.
What you say here is irrelevant. The first computer language predates the Watson-Cricks discovery. I didn't claim biology copied computer science. But if DNA shows linear code similar to the way we program computer language, than one could say DNA bears the signature of an intelligence just as computer language has.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,851
I'm sure you think you're being profound and impressive here, but writing in languages that you know the reader cant understand is a dick move. Your intentionally trying not to communicate here, your just making noise.

If you have something to say say it. If not I don't care to hear your noise.
Lol - I wanted to prompt you to think about the difference between information and data but I suspect my point has eluded you.

For meaning to be conveyed, either by microbes or men, there must initially be someone or something with the ability to express and transmit meaning, either by speech in a language the speaker understands, morse code or even the genetic code, riding on the DNA. This step is called “encoding”.

As an aside (and by way of illustration), let us grant the famous “monkey theorem” where a million monkeys work hard for a million years on their typewriters a success in encoding the works of Shakespeare. What then? Without anyone with the capacity to read and understand these works, the exercise falls flat.

In the same way, without the RNA perfectly complimenting the DNA and able to interpret what is encoded into protein formation, you will get nothing happening in even the most rudimentary cell.

I simply put these words into Google Translate “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” and translated it into Basque. What resulted was worthless to you because you could not decode the words, perhaps not being a Basque speaker yourself.

Language requires a speaker and a hearer, who are united by a language convention. As a minimum requirement for life, you require matter plus energy plus information (or “logos”). Logos doesn’t arise by chance.
 






Karlysymon

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,098
At what point does the lack of evidence become sufficient to conclude non-existence?

So, for example, we probably agree that pink unicorns do not exist. Why? Because there is no evidence that they do. Is it possible we missed something? Of course! Maybe, just maybe, there is a distant planet on which pink unicorns play all day. But if I had to place a bet, my bet would be that there isn't.

And again, is this lack of belief in unicorns based on faith or on reason? I hope you will agree it is NOT faith based, but reason based. So, what is the reason?
Faith is as integral to our everyday life as the very breath we take.

Sure, you’ve heard the phrase “take a chance on me” or “have a little faith in me”. When someone asks that of you or you in turn ask that of them, are you asking them to make their decision based on faith or based on reason? Are you asking them to defy reason and look into the future, a prerogative that isn’t natural to man?

If we never exercised faith, our lives would be pretty much “social distancing and lockdowns”. It takes faith to get up in the morning to go work believing you are going to have a good day. But if you were certain about having a bad day,week or month you wouldn’t venture out, now would you?

Now we turn to the issue of Gods. I'll stick to the Abrahamic God since that seems to be the only one you recognize. The only 'evidence' for this is based on a book that was clearly written for its propaganda value. We have many 'personal experiences', but all are preceded by psychological techniques that we *know* can lead to false perceptions. The main value is in the stories that are used to give meaning to life. One difference is that people don't tend to grow out of believing in this myth, but get really upset when others point out it is a myth not too different than many other myths of deities from around the world.
You are the best evidence for the Creator. A creator always leaves an imprint on his creation. Whether that be a bird's nest, an anthill or man's computers.
Truthfully, except that people don't tend to grow out of God belief because it is deep in our society, I don't see much difference. So it seems to me to be reasonable to disbelieve in God in exactly the same way and to the same extent I disbelieve in unicorns. Either way, I could be wrong, but the evidence simply isn't enough to support belief.
False. Man always has had the desire to reach out to the Being that is higher that himself. Its the reason that religions don't die out.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,424
I don’t think you should have tried to compare something that is entirely untrue to something that is true...first mistake.

Pink unicorns don’t exist and have never existed except in someone’s imagination. How do I know this? There aren’t any alive today and there is no evidence in history that they’ve ever existed...no bones, carvings, drawings..etc.

As to God who is real..there is evidence all around us that God exists. You say that the universe existing is not a cause to believe in God. Well..how about planet earth. Planet earth is the exact right distance from the sun to not get scorched or freeze. It is able to support life on it. Life that so happens to live comfortably on it. We have seasons every year that bring plants alive at the right time..and allows them to sleep at the right time. We people are able to breathe in oxygen to sustain our lives. We humans are able to think, plan and do..while animals exist. They have different intelligence levels but they don’t compare to a humans intelligence level. How is it that one planet in the vast expanse of the universe is able to carry on life? And to successfully carry on life. Nothing really wrecks life..like the seasons..life carry’s on as it always has been.

Then you have the miracle of the human body. What a miracle we are with our intelligence, our ability to communicate and think. The body maintains itself with very little help from us. The heart beats..the inner organs work without any input from our brains..we breathe in and out without thinking..and thank God! We’d all be dead if we had to think to have our heart beat or put air into our lungs. Then there’s the way our body heals itself..such a miracle. We can do things to help it..but you get a cold..the body heals itself. You break a bone..they body heals itself. You get a cut..the body heals itself. Pretty amazing. Its so amazing that there are dr’s that specialize in different areas of the body because one dr can’t know every part..and even the ones who specialize in their area don’t know it all either.

There is the miracle of birth. What people call cells are 2 different cells that come together in an unlikely and enjoyable way to start a brand new life. Not a carbon copy of a life..but a mixture of two different people that begins a new life that resembles both parents..has some of the same traits as both parents but grows into their own human with their own likes and dislikes..etc. Its astounding if you really think about it.

And then we get to a book that talks about there being a God..and how God created all that we see and even us. He talks about the problem with people...knowing your own self, your relatives and seeing the world around us..there are definite problems in people. And its only God who seems to know what it is..sin. And its also God who seems to know how to solve that problem..He solves that problem for us by sending His Son. Every other solution seems to ignore the sin problem and therefore can’t come close to finding a solution for the problem of man...if they were ever even capable of doing so. So..if you don’t believe in God..you can’t find the solution for your problems.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
You essentially have faith in the theory of Evolution?
First of all: evolution is science, which means it doesn't require faith nor does it require any supernatural factors.

If you back off from asserting that evolution is the unquestionable core of all science and treat it as a narrative of the data, then do the same with the creation narrative you may find the journey interesting. Take each scientific finding, and consider both a creationist and an evolutionary account of each. If nothing else, it will be interesting (I did it all the way through my degree) and you may review your position.
Yes. Blind faith in supernatural entities.
None of which is invoked in the science of biological evolution.
 






Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
1,300
Actually it does take faith to believe in certain sciences and various scientific claims. Unless your a scientist and have the means and brain to properly gauge and verify so called findings for yourself you are merely taking said findings as true in an act of faith. Fake sciences are a business and can serve anyone's agenda nowadays if one has the right money and influence. They rely on peoples ignorance and inability to validate such things...
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,851
First of all: evolution is science, which means it doesn't require faith nor does it require any supernatural factors.



Yes. Blind faith in supernatural entities.
None of which is invoked in the science of biological evolution.
You might want to do some research. Science is limited to what can be empirically verified or falsified. Both evolution and creation cannot be directly tested, observed or repeated. In that sense, they are both metaphysical.

A scientist faced with such divergent explanations must have the integrity to examine both possible explanations. Sadly most don’t.
 






Top