If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.
Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.
You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
That's Inaccurate and illogical.If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.
Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.
You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
You suspected wrong, as usual.hfd said:Not much activity here. The reason, I suspect, is that your contention is solid.
Not much activity here. The reason, I suspect, is that your contention is solid.
"How, then, did the first life arise? In the absence of a viable scientific answer, those needing a solution could only turn to religion.
To some scientists, particularly those defending evolution from attacks by fundamentalists, this situation was unacceptable.The most obvious remedy was the revival of spontaneous generation in some form, with added provision that it required conditions that were present long ago on earth but not now."
Shapiro, Robert - ORIGINS, (NY: Bantam Books, 1987) p. 1O9-11O
Ph.D. Harvard University
Former Professor of chemistry
New York University
28 November 1935 – 15 June 2011
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.
Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.
You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
A scientific naturalist will ask for explanations that are based in nature, yet the definition of what is "natural" may be too narrow to accommodate new modalities or paradigms. It's a catch 22 really.
God is not something that can ever be proven scientifically, but more mundane paranormal phenomena will continue to be dismissed because confirmation bias will prevent scientists from objectively evaluating a phenomenon that inherently challenges the dominant view of "natural".
This statement assumes that scientists are more interested in having an answer than in how they arrive at that answer. If that was how they thought, they wouldn't be operating as scientists. Science is a discipline with a rigorous set of rules. When you step outside of those rules in order to arrive at a theological conclusion, you've left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion.
Is that clear?
Science, and evolutionary science at that, is essentially in its infancy. It's a little early to conclude that no 3rd possibility exists.
With all due respect to the good Monsieur Pasteur, 120 years is a long ass time ago. There are several theories for how life arising from non-living matter can possibly happen.
"Using modern analytical techniques, Bada and his team, which included Eric Parker, then at Scripps, analyzed the products of the reaction, which were housed in small vials. They found an abundance of promising molecules: 23 amino acids and four amines, another type of organic molecule. The addition of hydrogen sulfide had also led to the creation of sulfur-containing amino acids, which are important to the chemistry of life. (One of these, methionine, initiates the synthesis of proteins.)
The results of the experiment – which exposed a mix of volcanic gases, including hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide gas to an electrical discharge – tell us that volcanic eruptions coinciding with lightning may have played a role in synthesizing large quantities and a variety of biologically crucial molecules on the primitive Earth..."
Chemistry of Life: An Old Experiment Offers New Insights | Amino Acids & Urey-Miller Experiment & Primordial Earth | LiveScience
1. Quite clear. Both chemical evolution
2. Please give a third possibility as to how life may have originated.
3. It's a long way from organic molecules to life.
To date life has not been generated from inorganic materials.
And, if it were done in a lab, it would require a creative intelligence wouldn't it.
BTW: Newton lived long ago. Gravity still operates.
And Dinosaurs and other creatures lived Many Millions of years ago... but we Still have their boneds, in Fact find thousands more every year.. Filling in/Detailing the Fact of Evolution.1. Quite clear. Both chemical evolution and the Big Bang are outside observable science. Neither have been seen nor replicated.
BTW: Newton lived long ago. Gravity still operates.
Continuing his Absurd FALLACY.hfd said:On the contrary
2. Please give a third possibility as to how life may have originated.
How do you know that? It may be a Very Short way- in a direction not yet taken.hfd said:3. It's a long way from organic molecules to life.
We only have to use 'intelligence' now because that's the only way to recreate Billions of years of different Chance element combinations and conditions.hfd said:To date life has not been generated from inorganic materials. And, if it were done in a lab, it would require a creative intelligence wouldn't it.
This is such a perfect misunderstanding of everything I said it's kind of hard to know where to start, but I'll give it a shot.
You obviously didn't click on my link or read the summary of the article I linked to.
and the Big Bang are outside observable science. Neither have been seen nor replicated.
You keep fallaciously Inferring there's a god by your questions."Continuing his Absurd FALLACY.
I don't know, so let's make up a god!
It worked for Rain, Ligthtning, Fire and Thunder right?
No."
What is it I'm making up? Please provide a third possibility for life's origin. Most all those involved say without equivocation that life is the product of a creator or it is the result of abiogenesis. I look forward to your response.
There are many definition of "natural" and the phenomena or objects included within any particular definition can change as new information is discovered. Often the opposite of "natural" in science is "imaginary." Scientists accept the existence of man-made phenomena, which are not "natural" under many definitions. If the existence of a god was observable, scientist might revise the parameters of natural to include that god/phenomena. Paranormal phenomena is dismissed because no one has oberved it under controlled conditions. If you can prove that these phenomena exist, the Amazing Randi foundation has a million dollars waiting for you.
"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant.""
Challenge Info
Some atheists may think like that but some atheists are idiots. I'd disagree with them.If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.
A scientific naturalist will ask for explanations that are based in nature, yet the definition of what is "natural" may be too narrow to accommodate new modalities or paradigms. It's a catch 22 really.
God is not something that can ever be proven scientifically, but more mundane paranormal phenomena will continue to be dismissed because confirmation bias will prevent scientists from objectively evaluating a phenomenon that inherently challenges the dominant view of "natural".
God is not something that can ever be proven scientifically
WHY NOT?
Because God is immaterial, and science is the philosophy of material reductionism.
What exactly does an immaterial god do? He can't create the earth, the definition of a material act. They can't provide guidance to humans, as that has obvious material consequences. Controlling natural disasters and weather is right out. Hell, even emotionally comforting a human with a feeling of "divine presence" would have a material impact on the chemical and neural makeup of the brain.
Your statement is a logical contradiction, as your claimed knowledge of an immaterial being would have led to your post and mine as material results of its existence.
I said God is immaterial, that doesn't mean God's actions can't have material consequences in some way that is not understood. But that's irrelevant because God itself/himself/herself/whatever is immaterial, and therefore it's impossible for science to distinguish between a merely mechanistic act due to physical properties, or one that was triggered by a Divine force. Hence, there is no point in science trying to critique God since all it concerns itself with are the properties of material phenomena.
i.e. does the ocean move because God controls gravity?
To a scientist, this is irrelevant to the study of gravity. Therefore I see no reason for some empiricists to get so bent out of shape when people say that God is moving the ocean. It's not something that can ever be tested so there's no point in arguing about it.
My point is, we are actually quite willing to accept any credible evidence. It is theists who have defined god so as not to leave any evidence.
So then why posit god as an explanation in the first place? It's a useless explanation. It doesn't give us more insight into the ocean. It doesn't tell us anything about the world. If it is impossible for the human mind (described by you as "science") "to distinguish between a merely mechanistic act due to physical properties, or one that was triggered by a Divine force", then why posit divine force in the first place?
I said God is immaterial, that doesn't mean God's actions can't have material consequences in some way that is not understood.
But that's irrelevant because God itself/himself/herself/whatever is immaterial, and therefore it's impossible for science to distinguish between a merely mechanistic act due to physical properties, or one that was triggered by a Divine force.
Hence, there is no point in science trying to critique God since all it concerns itself with are the properties of material phenomena.
i.e. does the ocean move because God controls gravity?
Humans, AFAIK, are the only species who ask "why". God is an answer to that. Science describes the how, it does not concern itself with the why, because why can have any number of answers at the end of the day. If you go to the Wikipedia page on "God", there is no section that discusses what science thinks about the issue, because really, science doesn't care. As you've aptly pointed out, the existence of God does not add or subtract from scientific practice.
God provides meaning for many. It's an epistemological world view. That's why I see no point in trying to validate or denigrate it, and I wish scientists would stop doing it. I realize that some Christians have tried to milk the science angle to validate their beliefs in the modern world, and that the school of rationality has been viciously attacked by religion in the past, but those two facts aside, theism has zero to do with science so why does science concern itself with debunking theists?
Science is a deus ex machina worldview, and theism is the opposite. The fact that in some instances they try to compete is a result of petty and selfish human egos, since the two are quite capable of co-existing.
Some of us don't want the comfort of false hope. We want the truth. No scientist is out to denigrate anyone, other than their direct competitors. They want the truth. The existence of a god is not up for a vote. It doesn't depend on how we feel about it. It is either true or it isn't. And if there is anything that human beings seek, it is truth. That religion posits these gods and states that they interact with the world in meaningful ways, that's asserting a candidate for truth. And we want to know the real truth. Theists can feel about the truth however they like, but they don't get to determine it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?