@avalanchethecat saidAnd your theory for how life started - like macroevolution - is based on neither observation nor experimentation.
Neither of us knows how life started. The theory you favour involves an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, and your only evidence for the existence of this is gleaned from a handful of pre-scientific stories. Mine does not include any super-beings. I would hazard that critically, one should tend towards the theory with the fewer infinite quantities.
In other words, it’s a substance-free guess.
@avalanchethecat saidNo, a part of the evidence is, without a doubt, religious documents written years ago. Still, they are not limited to only that; the entire universe and everything in it is evidence. Simply because your beliefs lack something mine has does not automatically mean you are correct because less is better. If what is missing is required, it leaves many other pieces of all the explanations about the whole hanging in midair.
Neither of us knows how life started. The theory you favour involves an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, and your only evidence for the existence of this is gleaned from a handful of pre-scientific stories. Mine does not include any super-beings. I would hazard that critically, one should tend towards the theory with the fewer infinite quantities.
The belief system that can explain everything has more going for it than the one that cannot; the belief system that can give an accurate view of all things we see in the universe is better than the one that cannot. As I said earlier, simply having a belief doesn't mean what I believe is true any more than you have a belief means what you believe is true. A belief system full of contradictions must be explained away with jargon like "it could have happened this way, or that" is not based on solid ground; instead, it is like shifting sand.
@kellyjay saidYou're being disingenuous. Without your bronze age stories of magic and miracles, your religion wouldn't exist; they're not 'part' of the evidence, they're the only evidence you have. Some slight weight, I'll grant you.
No, a part of the evidence is, without a doubt, religious documents written years ago. Still, they are not limited to only that; the entire universe and everything in it is evidence. Simply because your beliefs lack something mine has does not automatically mean you are correct because less is better. If what is missing is required, it leaves many other pieces of all the exp ...[text shortened]... ld have happened this way, or that" is not based on solid ground; instead, it is like shifting sand.
Your dismissal of the possibility of a non-magical origin of life as 'jargon' and a 'belief system full of contradictions' does you no credit and is simply not true, nor something I have posited. What is it you think I believe? That evolution took place? What alternative theory do you have which explains the undeniable fossil record? I have stated quite clearly that I don't know how life started, I have simply said that I see no reason why it could not have started without the actions of a magical super-being. It is you who claim to know the origin of life on Earth, based solely on pre-scientific stories of one specific culture. You have no argument as to why your favoured scripture should be true as opposed to that of other cultures.
@avalanchethecat said<<You have no argument as to why your favoured scripture should be true as opposed to that of other cultures.>>
You're being disingenuous. Without your bronze age stories of magic and miracles, your religion wouldn't exist; they're not 'part' of the evidence, they're the only evidence you have. Some slight weight, I'll grant you.
Your dismissal of the possibility of a non-magical origin of life as 'jargon' and a 'belief system full of contradictions' does you no credit and ...[text shortened]... e no argument as to why your favoured scripture should be true as opposed to that of other cultures.
Totally false. You continue to deny all of the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection.
Unlike the theory of evolution, people observed the Resurrected Christ. No one has observed macroevolution - despite attempts at speciation with bacteria and fruit flies which have very short generational spans.
The Resurrection account also may include physical evidence - namely the Shroud of Turin, and, no, the Shroud was not dated to centuries after Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection; the sample taken was demonstrated by objective scientists to have been taken from part of a re-weave after the Shroud was damaged in a fire.
And no one seems able to explain how the image on the Shroud was formed 🤔
What “evidence” do you have for the theory of evolution? A bunch of drawings of what artists think transitional forms looked like?
@avalanchethecat said<<I have stated quite clearly that I don't know how life started, I have simply said that I see no reason why it could not have started without the actions of a magical super-being.>>
You're being disingenuous. Without your bronze age stories of magic and miracles, your religion wouldn't exist; they're not 'part' of the evidence, they're the only evidence you have. Some slight weight, I'll grant you.
Your dismissal of the possibility of a non-magical origin of life as 'jargon' and a 'belief system full of contradictions' does you no credit and ...[text shortened]... e no argument as to why your favoured scripture should be true as opposed to that of other cultures.
So you think life arises from non-life?
You think life arises from inanimate material? Sounds like a miracle to me! I thought you didn’t believe in miracles.
@avalanchethecat said<<Without your bronze age stories of magic and miracles, your religion wouldn't exist; they're not 'part' of the evidence, they're the only evidence you have.>>
You're being disingenuous. Without your bronze age stories of magic and miracles, your religion wouldn't exist; they're not 'part' of the evidence, they're the only evidence you have. Some slight weight, I'll grant you.
Your dismissal of the possibility of a non-magical origin of life as 'jargon' and a 'belief system full of contradictions' does you no credit and ...[text shortened]... e no argument as to why your favoured scripture should be true as opposed to that of other cultures.
They’re not the only evidence at all.
Can you logically explain Saul of Tarsus’ conversion from being one of the worst persecutors of early Christians to being the faith’s greatest advocate and defender and the author of most of the New Testament?
Can you explain the change in Jesus Christ’s disciples - from hiding out in fear of the Pharisees to boldly confronting them and refusing to stop preaching in Jesus’ name?
Where’s Jesus’ body?
How do you explain the empty tomb?
How do you explain all the Messianic prophecies He fulfilled, including the date of His crucifixion, which was prophesied 500+ years in advance?
There’s much more, but your mind is irreversibly closed on the subject.
No offense, but you’re quite ignorant of the evidence for Christianity, and, unfortunately, it’s willful ignorance because you’re not interested in learning.
Oh well!
2 edits
@avalanchethecat saidWe are talking about reality; is reality due to an uncaused first cause? If that is the case, it could have things that point to more than just the material makeup. You cannot get away from miracles; even you have an issue with where everything came from, from nothing? Was everything already here forever and ever? Both of those are miraculous statements, and neither can we prove. Nothing comes from nothing, and if there was an eternal time stream, wouldn't there be an eternity of time before we ever get to where we are now, which means we should never get to where we are due to the eternal time before this point in time?
You're being disingenuous. Without your bronze age stories of magic and miracles, your religion wouldn't exist; they're not 'part' of the evidence, they're the only evidence you have. Some slight weight, I'll grant you.
Your dismissal of the possibility of a non-magical origin of life as 'jargon' and a 'belief system full of contradictions' does you no credit and ...[text shortened]... e no argument as to why your favoured scripture should be true as opposed to that of other cultures.
Casting off a religious belief simply because there are miracles in them is by definition not by logic ignoring the possibility. You define all miracles as show stoppers that it isn't a logical argument you are using; it's your bias, which isn't much different from what I said about time and evolution. I cannot argue against someone's opinion, only facts. If you, by definition, reject the possibility of an uncaused first cause even though you in your belief system have something like it, your bias alone stops you from looking at it, not logic or facts.
@kellyjay saidOh I disagree. Complexity can most certainly arise from chaos, and although we as yet have no concrete understanding of how the universe may have arisen from nothing, this by no means necessitates a miraculous event. To simply shrug and say that 'god did it' to fill a gap in our knowledge is of course an option, but the experience of mankind since the renaissance suggests that this is unlikely to provide a correct and definitive answer. Your insistence that 'nothing comes from nothing' is based in conjecture. You don't know that, you just don't have any experience of it happening. You also don't have any experience of men rising from the dead, or burning bushes talking to people, or water being turned into wine, but you're quite happy to accept these things as facts based on ancient, explicitly biased and thus quite dubious sources.
We are talking about reality; is reality due to an uncaused first cause? If that is the case, it could have things that point to more than just the material makeup. You cannot get away from miracles; even you have an issue with where everything came from, from nothing? Was everything already here forever and ever? Both of those are miraculous statements, and neither can we p ...[text shortened]... ief system have something like it, your bias alone stops you from looking at it, not logic or facts.
To accept that magic, miracles and the supernatural happen based simply on the unverified and unverifiable accounts of other men seems to me to be recklessly uncritical. You say this is an illogical position to take, but I ask you, when presented with a 'witness account' of a magical event, which is more likely; that the magical event happened - something that has never, ever been verified in the past - or that the witness was mistaken, misled or simply falsified the account - something that happens every day? Obviously it's the latter. Logic demands it.
@suzianne saidThat's an entirely reasonable position to take, but it's a stumbler to those believers for whom the bible is the literal word of god.
These endless "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong" arguments concerning evolution vs. creationism are so needless.
Both are true. But everyone wants to win the willy-waving contest.
@avalanchethecat saidSpecified functional complexity within systems supporting systems is a little different than something that is just complex. People complain about "god did it" but don't have an issue saying we don't know "evolution did it." This is to say that our lack of specific knowledge doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and make a declaration as if that settles all questions, what is reasonable mindlessness or intelligence. We live in a world where we see intelligent design because we are the designers, and still, we also see other designs because we know these specific birds build these nests, and those build those.
Oh I disagree. Complexity can most certainly arise from chaos, and although we as yet have no concrete understanding of how the universe may have arisen from nothing, this by no means necessitates a miraculous event. To simply shrug and say that 'god did it' to fill a gap in our knowledge is of course an option, but the experience of mankind since the renaissance sugg ...[text shortened]... lsified the account - something that happens every day? Obviously it's the latter. Logic demands it.
Anything caused comes from something that causes it; nothing is the absence of all things space, time, energy, matter, and everything else; there is nothing to react with, so what will come out of that other than more nothing? There is no before, no heat, no place, any form of power, and out of that, a universe is possible, in your opinion?
As I pointed out earlier, concerning what we call the natural order, this is just the way things are used to; that doesn't mean things of what we would call unnatural are impossible. If possible, they would point to something more than just what we are typically used to seeing, which is the point.
@avalanchethecat saidIt is or not, if it is, why would I or anyone move away from its truth?
That's an entirely reasonable position to take, but it's a stumbler to those believers for whom the bible is the literal word of god.
1 edit
@kellyjay said"Specified functional complexity within systems supporting systems is a little different than something that is just complex. People complain about "god did it" but don't have an issue saying we don't know "evolution did it." This is to say that our lack of specific knowledge doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and make a declaration as if that settles all questions, what is reasonable mindlessness or intelligence. We live in a world where we see intelligent design because we are the designers, and still, we also see other designs because we know these specific birds build these nests, and those build those. "
Specified functional complexity within systems supporting systems is a little different than something that is just complex. People complain about "god did it" but don't have an issue saying we don't know "evolution did it." This is to say that our lack of specific knowledge doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and make a declaration as if that settles all questions, wh ...[text shortened]... ey would point to something more than just what we are typically used to seeing, which is the point.
Given an unknown, is the cause likely to be magical or non-magical? You feel justified in accepting the former, I, having no belief in magic, prefer the latter.
Neither of us knows how the universe came about. You feel justified in accepting a supernatural source, I, having no belief in the super-natural, don't feel this justification, so am obliged to accept a non-magical source, however unlikely you feel that may be.
Again, I do accept the possibility of a god or gods and a super-natural origin for the universe, but since I find no credible evidence supporting the existence of these things, it seems vastly more likely to me that there are as yet unknown but entirely mundane processes which lead to things such as the existence of the universe, life within it, and intelligent life from that.
Edit: I question my use of the word 'mundane'. I hardly think the spontaneous generation of the universe is a mundane event, but I don't feel inclined to invoke a god into the equation.
3 edits
@avalanchethecat saidSince I'm not talking about Harry Potter, I don't use the word magic to describe what I believe we consider out of the norm or supernatural. From the creation of the universe, then its maintenance day to day, all of the fine-tuning constants in the universe, how life started from non-living material, how all of the information within life got to be there directing the various processes, and on and on these are all things I think are right up there with anything ever written in scripture. If life started from dead dirt by design, that designer would have no problem raising a dead person back to life. If the universe were spoken into existence, water to wine would not be an issue.
"Specified functional complexity within systems supporting systems is a little different than something that is just complex. People complain about "god did it" but don't have an issue saying we don't know "evolution did it." This is to say that our lack of specific knowledge doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and make a declaration as if that settles all quest ...[text shortened]... ion of the universe is a mundane event, but I don't feel inclined to invoke a god into the equation.
As I said, if you deny the supernatural even while acknowledging them simultaneously, you are limiting your queries by your bias, nothing more. We are getting to the point of repeating ourselves here now.
@kellyjay saidIt simply isn't rational to invoke the supernatural with no evidence that the supernatural exists. You object to the use of the word 'magic', but that's exactly what you're talking about. You're effectively saying that unless I can tell you the exact mechanism by which the universe came into being and by which life and by extension ourselves arose naturally then your hypothesis, which is based on nothing more than fantastic stories which may have no more basis in fact than the Harry Potter tales you speak of with such disdain, should be reasonably accepted as possible and given weight of evidence comparable with actual, scientifically derived hypotheses. It's not reasonable.
Since I'm not talking about Harry Potter, I don't use the word magic to describe what I believe we consider out of the norm or supernatural. From the creation of the universe, then its maintenance day to day, all of the fine-tuning constants in the universe, how life started from non-living material, how all of the information within life got to be there directing the variou ...[text shortened]... our queries by your bias, nothing more. We are getting to the point of repeating ourselves here now.
You imply that I acknowledge the supernatural; this is not the case. I acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural. Without much greater evidence than is currently available, that possibility should reasonably be viewed as most unlikely.