Inevitable problem with abiogenesis

[Speedwell]

How do you know this?

The only way you can know it is by faith. In my experience, those who attempt to "prove" God with science usually have a political motive--ranging from the desire of YECs to get fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study into the public schools officially to the totalitarian calvinist theocracy the Discovery Institute dreams of.

 

[dmmesdale]

How do you know this?

Inference to the best explanation given the totality of facts and its alternative hypo as inferior having zero explanatory power or precedent.

 

[Chriliman]

None, now that you've divided indirectly from directly. But the usual creationist position is that God had to physically move the atoms into place to form the right organic compounds or He had nothing to do with it. That He might allow natural causes to do the heavy lifting seems anathema to them.

Ok I see what you're saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only way you can know it is by faith. In my experience, those who attempt to "prove" God with science usually have a political motive--ranging from the desire of YECs to get fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study into the public schools officially to the totalitarian calvinist theocracy the Discovery Institute dreams of.

Don't you mean back into the public schools?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Inference to the best explanation given the totality of facts and its alternative hypo as inferior having zero explanatory power or precedent.

I think you're mistaken. It is "goddidit" that has zero explanatory power or precedent.

 

[dmmesdale]

I think you're mistaken. It is "goddidit" that has zero explanatory power or precedent.

Why ask in the first place? The problem with atheists is reality. They prefer fiction and contradictions.

 

[Speedwell]

Why ask in the first place? The problem with atheists is reality. They prefer fiction and contradictions.

He's right, though. "God did it" is an unfalsifiable proposition; you can't do science with unfalsifiable propositions. "God did it" explains anything that happened, thus it explains nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you're mistaken. It is "goddidit" that has zero explanatory power or precedent.

Thanks!

You've given me an idea for a challenge!

 

[Speedwell]

Don't you mean back into the public schools?

Indeed. But Evangelical Protestanism was never the official religion of this country and didn't belong there in the first place. Not to mention that the present crop of "Bible-believers" who consider themselves the true heirs of that unwarranted privilege are too far out theologically to even consider it.

 

[dmmesdale]

He's right, though. "God did it" is an unfalsifiable proposition;

Garbage. The whole gogdidit dismissal is sarcastic in the first place and thus unscientific. You don't advance hypos or do science with appeals to sarcasm. You eliminate hypos with superior hypos (not the inferior and contradictory alternative) that jibe with the known facts.

you can't do science with unfalsifiable propositions.

Garbage. Critics simply wish to eliminate a possible based on selectively applied rules. It is as scientific as a buch of kids squabbling on a playground about rules. The tail of rules wagging the dog of truth.

"God did it" explains anything that happened, thus it explains nothing.

It does not have to explain. It only has to eliminate the alternative hypo to advance. Unless you wish to assert truth takes a back seat to contrived rules. God explains the first cause of bio life and is compatable with all we know about life. That does not mean it explains nothing. It explains something unless you consider life nothing. If does no good for science to eliminate valid hypos as unscientific and then refusing to consider them. Its a con job.

 

[AV1611VET]

But Evangelical Protestanism was never the official religion of this country and didn't belong there in the first place.

What's an "Evangelical Protestant"?

Or for that matter, what is a "Protestant"?

Sounds like some kind of hippy movement or something.

 

[Speedwell]

Garbage. The whole gogdidit dismissal is sarcastic in the first place and thus unscientific. You don't advance hypos or do science with appals to sarcasm. You eliminat hypos with superior hypos (not the inferior and contradictory alternative) that jibe with the known facts. Garbage. Critics simply wish to eliminate a possible based on selectively applied rules. It is as scientific as a buch of kids squabbling on a plyaground about rules. The tail of rules wagging the dog of truth. It does not have to explain. It only has to eliminate the alternative hypo to advance. Unless you wish to assert truth takes a back seat to contrived rules. God explains the first cause of bio life and is compatable with all we know about life. That does not mean it explains nothing. It explains something unless you consider life nothing. If does no good for science to eliminate valid hypos as unscientific and then refusing to consider them. Its a con job.

I'm not being sarcastic, I'mtalking about fundamental logic. That "God did it" cannot be disproven by science, no matter what phenomenon it is invoked for. That's what I mean by unfalsifiable. Nor can it be an explanation, because there is no "how" to it. The purpose of a scientifc explanation is to explain how a phenomenon came about. "God did it" does not do that.

 

[dmmesdale]

I'm not being sarcastic, I'mtalking about fundamental logic. That "God did it" cannot be disproven by science, no matter what phenomenon it is invoked for. That's what I mean by unfalsifiable. Nor can it be an explanation, because there is no "how" to it. The purpose of a scientifc explanation is to explain how a phenomenon came about. "God did it" does not do that.

OK, the fact you exist is unscientific because it cannot be falsified by you. Prove you do not exist. The criteria is not an absolute since any imagined scenario can falsify a living source and the alternatives have done as much in all their hypos of nonliving causes. Christianity can be falsified if archeologists discovered the body of Jesus. Both are imagined scenarios and thus meet the standard of falsification. You guys are just putting this stuff up here and not really knowing what is being addressed.

The God hypo is not a squared circle contradiction. Since life here is positive evidence for God if we reason from effect to cause based on all we know about life. The focus should be on the evidence for a living source, not its unfalsifiability. What you have here is tail wagging the dog, not fundamental logic. Your default cannot logically compete. Absent God, we would not be here, or anywhere since there would be no ''here'' to occupy. There is something and nothing exists as an abstract. If nothing was a reality then there would always be nothing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Garbage. The whole gogdidit dismissal is sarcastic in the first place and thus unscientific. You don't advance hypos or do science with appeals to sarcasm.

Maybe not, but you can eliminate unsubstantiated claims with sarcasm.

It does not have to explain.

Certainly it does. Otherwise, we haven't answered any questions. We've just stuck a magic feather into our ignorance and called it a solution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The God hypo is not a squared circle contradiction.

Nobody said it was. But it doesn't explain anything. It's just an empty name given to an explanation. It is a splunge explanation. A grammatical phrase that fills a gap, but provides no explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, the fact you exist is unscientific because it cannot be falsified by you. Prove you do not exist. The criteria is not an absolute since any imagined scenario can falsify a living source and the alternatives have done as much in all their hypos of nonliving causes. Christianity can be falsified if archeologists discovered the body of Jesus. Both are imagined scenarios and thus meet the standard of falsification. You guys are just putting this stuff up here and not really knowing what is being addressed.

The God hypo is not a squared circle contradiction. Since life here is positive evidence for God if we reason from effect to cause based on all we know about life. The focus should be on the evidence for a living source, not its unfalsifiability. What you have here is tail wagging the dog, not fundamental logic. Your default cannot logically compete. Absent God, we would not be here, or anywhere since there would be no ''here'' to occupy. There is something and nothing exists as an abstract. If nothing was a reality then there would always be nothing.

So as I understand you, you are rejecting the proposition that the existence of God cannot be disproven. I'm not sure why. I find it a comfort to my faith to know that nothing that science has or will discover can disprove the existence of God.

 

[Chriliman]

Nobody said it was. But it doesn't explain anything. It's just an empty name given to an explanation. It is a splunge explanation. A grammatical phrase that fills a gap, but provides no explanation.

It's not necessarily that God did it, but rather, God can explain it. Logically, the most sophisticated explanations require the most sophisticated intelligence. This is true, regardless if you believe God has the most sophisticated intelligence or not.

 

[dmmesdale]

So as I understand you, you are rejecting the proposition that the existence of God cannot be disproven.

No you don't understand. If falsification is the standard then falsify your existence and if you can't then to propose you do exist is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. Now this is the second time.

I'm not sure why. I find it a comfort to my faith to know that nothing that science has or will discover can disprove the existence of God.

Good for you?

 

[dmmesdale]

Maybe not, but you can eliminate unsubstantiated claims with sarcasm.

You can eliminate it for any subjective reason you like.

Certainly it does. Otherwise, we haven't answered any questions. We've just stuck a magic feather into our ignorance and called it a solution.

Well you did cut out my response and ignored. You responded to this. ''It does not have to explain.'' And ignored this, ''It only has to eliminate the alternative hypo to advance.'' If you have a better hypo then put it out there for examination, otherwise the God hypo wins by default. Atheism is all hat and no cattle.

 

[Speedwell]

No you don't understand. If falsification is the standard then falsify your existence and if you can't then to propose you do exist is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. Now this is the second time.

Falsifiablility is the standard for what? Only for scientific propositions, as I understand it. I'm not sure why you would wish to reduce the existence of God to the status of a falsifiable proposition. The second time of what? The second time you have failed to explain to me why you subscribe to such an irreligious view?