A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
God doesn't give you the sort of evidence you demand, therefore there is no God.
I'm saying that I need evidence that he exists before I'll believe that he exists. How is this in any way saying that god doesn't exist?
Because you're not saying that, at all. you're saying you want to DEFINE the nature of the evidence you want.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've pointed out many times what the Bible says
Not in this thread, or at least I don't see it, and I'll be posting in the soapbox I guess.
No, I would always go that far only in the soapbox.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Standards of integrity, honesty, openness, scientific reasoning. That sort of stuff.
Uh, so someone who questions another's beliefs has no integrity, honesty, openness or scientific reasoning? :confused:
This is pointless, as always. My core point is that your attempts to question me are based at least as much as my views on preconceived ideas and beliefs which you refuse to allow to be challenged. It's not a quest for truth, it's a quest to justify your already held views. Wrapping it up in claims of scientific integrity is dishonest, and unscientific.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Because you're not saying that, at all. you're saying you want to DEFINE the nature of the evidence you want.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
you're saying you want to DEFINE the nature of the evidence you want.
When did I say that? You'll have to explicitly point it out to me.
-
This is pointless, as always. My core point is that your attempts to question me are based at least as much as my views on preconceived ideas and beliefs which you refuse to allow to be challenged. It's not a quest for truth, it's a quest to justify your already held views. Wrapping it up in claims of scientific integrity is dishonest, and unscientific.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
This is pointless, as always.
I'm just trying to understand what you think 'sceptic' actually means.
Christian Graus wrote:
My core point is that your attempts to question me are based at least as much as my views on preconceived ideas and beliefs which you refuse to allow to be challenged. It's not a quest for truth, it's a quest to justify your already held views.
What a cop-out. When have you ever seriously challenged my views with something tangible?
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
I think that the Universe is filled with living beings other than ourselves. They are (wisely) dodging us, and are smart enough to avoid discovery for at least several more lifetimes. No doubt their equivalent of teenagers find the urge to occasionally buzz the yokels here irresistible, which explains UFO sightings, but they eventually grow up and become responsible beings, just like ours do. Well, most of them.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
As I mentioned before, the argument made me remember about this mail and so I posted it. By the way, I am also a firm believer of Science and don't believe anything illogical. But I do believe that there is some power governing the universe and I call that power "THE GOD".
..Go Green..
Ankurm/ wrote:
a firm believer of Science
You don't actually need to believe in it.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
So why couldnt god have created life elsewhere in the solar system? After all, he created it at the south pole. It took man a few millenia to find out. Or is it that you think that gods only interest is man? In that case do you hold the view that all other life is there to serve man? If so then how do you tally that view with the statement in the gospels about those who show compassion for gods littlest creatures? You therefore have to accept that god does care about all likfe and that he equally might have created it in any number of places in the universe. Unless you take the view that the earth is gods domainm and that other planets are the domain of other gods. In which case god isnt infinite.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not.
Well, the two are not incompatible. If experiments actually prove that life can spontaneously exist, then I'm willing to listen. I read a lot of popular science, I also read a number of books in recent times that were in support of free for all evolution and spontaneous life. I don't come by my views by ignoring those that oppose them.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere?
Well, that's not my claim. My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience, and therefore I believe He created life. It's kind of backwards to what you said. But, assuming I did make that claim, why would there have to be life everywhere ? The weakest argument proposed by people who claim there can't be a God is 'If there was a God, he'd have done things my way', IMO.
harold aptroot wrote:
How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence?
Well, He does, as it happens. But that's edging pretty close to Soapbox material.
harold aptroot wrote:
So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe
Only by a word game, not in any meaningful way. Scott Adams ( of Dilbert fame ) wrote several books, and in one he talked about his belief that picturing something you want to happen, can make it happen. In the next, he talks at length about his response to people who pilloried him for his view, and in particular talks about how Occams Razor is a farce in the sense it is used by people today. I don't agree with him on the visualisation thing, but I agree with him that there's nothing more close minded or bigoted than a sceptic. Funny, the guy who runs the skeptic magazine in the US wrote a number of the books I've read of late, and he seems to be a calm, decent, logical individual. So are most skeptics, but the first book I read was 'why do smart people believe dumb things' or something similar. Yes, creationists got a chapter :-) It's funny to me that in some ways, that is true of the skeptic movement, and it's obsession with misapplication of Occam's Razor. I googled for the chapter online, but could not find it. It appears to be in the book 'the jo
Christian Graus wrote:
My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience
Based on my experience of nearly 40 years of life there is no evidence for God, and I was raised as a Christian and have read most of the Bible. As a rational, thinking being, as a result of this it is illogical and incomprehensible to me to be anything other than an atheist. If your experience tells you there is a God, and mine tells me there isn't, how can we determine who is right?
-
Nope. The fluffy one is right. She knows me so well.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
In Pete's context it means drunk.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Yeah, I know. When I said "used here", I meant in India. Britishers use some quaint words. :)
Cheers, Vikram. (Got my troika of CCCs!)
-
Ankurm/ wrote:
a firm believer of Science
You don't actually need to believe in it.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
I was funnier in that thread. I hadn't realised I'd been so sig-worthy either.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Well, you don't believe in God, so you're obviously a Nazi. Does that do it ? ( Actually, Hitler thought he was doing God's work, but, that would kill the joke )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Was this reply to me or DD? This thread has become seriously borked.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
I understand your argument. There are problems with it. Saying you are open to it does not make it so. Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper. One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe. Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve. Or evolution, or trickledown economics, free market, government intervention, socialism, any of a million things that people see the same data and draw opposing conclusions. God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see. I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong. I came through engineering, calculus and physics. Both sides tell me it can't be so. If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they? People believe what they choose to, and, as the saying goes, YMMV.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ankurm/ wrote:
a firm believer of Science
You don't actually need to believe in it.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented together
By creationists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes.
Where did you get this from? :omg:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
By creationists.
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing? I am a firm 'evolutionist', and I believe in God. But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience
Based on my experience of nearly 40 years of life there is no evidence for God, and I was raised as a Christian and have read most of the Bible. As a rational, thinking being, as a result of this it is illogical and incomprehensible to me to be anything other than an atheist. If your experience tells you there is a God, and mine tells me there isn't, how can we determine who is right?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Why not ? If He has a plan, and a desire to interact with creation, why do it in more than one place ?
Ah, so you're a theist then? But I would say nothing really follows one way or the other. Are you a Christian? I think Christianity strongly tends to the view that creation is for Man but doesn't strictly imply it. I vaguely remember reading some discussion by C. S. Lewis on this.
Christian Graus wrote:
Life everywhere is simply more likely to happen if life is an accident and not something that has a plan behind it
Yes. Well, it depends what we mean by "accident." If the probability is vanishingly small then it may only have happened once. If the probability is small but reasonable then I would expect life to be everywhere. Personally, if we discount your theistic view, I think the second is more likely. I can't prove this other than by reference to the symmetry of the universe and the strangeness of life, i.e., complex events can't be explained by vanishingly small probabilities.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I would expect life to be everywhere.
Where are the radio comms of other life? Is it that the chance life only gets intelligent enough to have radio is so small that the conjunction of radio, life and planets has none at a distance and age for the radio waves to be arriving now? That has bothered me, because one of the solutions to the probability equation is that somebody kills them all, as soon as they hear them, so the time of radiating tends to be short. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
I understand your argument. There are problems with it. Saying you are open to it does not make it so. Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper. One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe. Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve. Or evolution, or trickledown economics, free market, government intervention, socialism, any of a million things that people see the same data and draw opposing conclusions. God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see. I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong. I came through engineering, calculus and physics. Both sides tell me it can't be so. If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they? People believe what they choose to, and, as the saying goes, YMMV.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Saying you are open to it does not make it so.
But it doesn't make it not so.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper.
All things which don't require god to exist at all.
RichardM1 wrote:
One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe.
The point of religious faith in general is believing without seeing. Observation removes the need for faith.
RichardM1 wrote:
Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve.
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.
RichardM1 wrote:
Or evolution
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'. The only people who don't believe in evolution are those who don't understand it, and who fabricate elaborate excuses for the evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see.
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
RichardM1 wrote:
I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong.
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
RichardM1 wrote:
If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they?
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.