Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[bhsmte]

Most people consider it silly that you consider it not having been clearly demonstrated in nature yet.
I also consider it silly that you choose to believe in something that hasn't been demonstrated ion nature at all yet.
So I guess the perception of silliness is mutual.



I assumed you meant an atheist professor because you have irrational expectations of the kind that only an atheist professor is likely to fulfill. Non atheists professor would calmly weigh the proposition instead of assuming that I mean some entity that will spy on them while they are naked.

You have a bad habit, of not reading what people write and putting words in others mouths.

 

[Locutus]

True, I have not provide evidence which supports your interpretations.
Besides, even if I did you would immediately pull out the inability to see card.

Only if the evidence is not actually evidence.

If I said to you "trees are evidence of magical unicorns", would you be able to 'see'?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The truth behind your vehement objections finally comes out! It isn't really the dimensions you object to-it is the being or deity that you imagine I am suggesting might dwell in such hypothetical dimension that irks you.

No. What irks me is the assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions you invoke, while misrepresenting scientists and overblowing their hypotheticals.

That last part in my post was just for entertainment value.

Wrong! Unceremonious dismissals don't constitute a rebuttal.

I don't need "rebuttals" to rather silly ideas that you never supported with evidence in the first place.

That is an extremely basic argumentation principle with which anyone who is attempting to engage in an argument should be aware.

An actual "extremely basic argumentation principle", is living up to your burden of proof instead of shifting it.

Otherwise he shouldn't be attempting to argue in the first place..

Right back at ya...

BTW
Below you claim that they aren't concepts! Above you admit that they are.

No. Below I claim that they aren't "basic concepts".

Hypotheticals are now not concepts? Now you are writing your own dictionary.

The stuff you wrote down aren't basic concept.
Try reading a bit more attentively.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The only reason offered so far for the rejection of the proposed dimension is that the being who might reside there might be interested on what the atheist is doing while the atheist happens to be but naked. With all due respect but I am not proposing that the being in such a dimension is interested in what atheists are doing while they are but naked. I am merely proposing that a being who fits the description of creator might reside there. Hope that clears it up and assuages atheist fears.

The only reason offered for proposing this dimension is that you believe it.

I don't need to refute that which isn't even supported in the first place.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

Your "what-if's" and question begging only deserves pointing out.

 

[Freodin]

Well, since I never claimed that we can observe a creator directly creating in nature that is unfortunately a straw-man argument. What i did say, and which you totally ignore, is that the only pattern we are able to observe in nature is life coming from previous life. Any other idea has absolutely no basis in observation and therefore lacks observational support...

But you do claim the existence of a creator... and you admit that this creator cannot be directly observed in nature.

So obviously this idea also has absolutely no basis in observation and therefore lacks observational support. Just saying.

...which should make far less viable than the life is derived only from life conclusion. The fact that it is avoided like the Bubonic plague seems to or might indicate a bias which might be traceable in some instances to the psychological phenomenon referred to as theophobia.

Why "theophobia"? You were talking about "life", weren't you? Now where do gods come into that?

But that is the point that you avoid like the plague: in your "life only from life" inference, you keep ignoring the necessary starting point. Where does the "first life" come from?

Observation might not help you a lot here, but logic might.

- The "first life" cannot have come from "life"... it wouldn't be "first" life.
- Thus "first life" is extempt from the rule that "life only comes from life".
- "First life" is still "life". Thus the rule "life only comes from life" is not universal.

Thus we would have to adjust the rule "(current / higher) life only comes from life. (Original / basic) life must have come from something different than life, especially (current / higher) life."

Now it is a decision between your "life - The Creator" and "a certain combination of in-itself non-living components".

And then we are back to step 1. The later might not have been "observed in nature" or "forced to happen in the lab"... but there exists evidence that it is at least possible.
For the former, no hypothesis, no attempt at an explanation even exists.

Life doesn't arise from life in church?

Sorry but life coming from life can certainly be made to happen in church. The problem is that allowing congress in church in order to provide a demonstration is rather inappropriate. Mendel used animals in his initial genetic research and was told to stop because it appeared unseemly to his religious supervisors so he switched to vegetation. But rest assured that despite the religious ambience in which he was working life was certainly coming via life. The good thing about it was that he needed no forcing of the type attempted in abiogenesis to have it happen.

You don't need to play dumb. You know quite well what I was aiming at. But your evasion plays very well into my next point. Let's go on!

Aware of what the principle encompasses? The principles involved in reaching a conclusion based on that observation? Oh! You must mean the inductive leap based on observation of pattern. Yes, we are aware that in order to make the inductive leap an observable pattern must exist. Otherwise an inductive leap would be impossible. That's basic to the scientific method and if we unceremoniously discard it when we deem it convenient-then we can be accused of being unscientific ad we certainly don't want that-right?

What does this "life" that you are talking about encompass? What is this "life" that is the origin... what is this "life" that is the product?
You weasel and wiggle and never say... but your examples show it: you are talking about biological, material life. And you still promote "a creator" as the "life" from which other "life" originates.

So if you want to show in church that this "life (the creator)" can produce "life (biological lifeforms)"... don't use Mendel and his breeding experiments... get your "creator" to make some life!

BTW

I have also said that the manner in which such life is organized meets the requirements for logically concluding the activity a creative mind.

Really? You might have said that... asserted it... but if you did indeed present a logical conclusion to this point, I must have missed it.
If you already posted it, please point me to the relevant post. If you didn't... well, do it now!

To which atheists always respond with:

"We can't see!"

I'd like to see you respond to the conclusion that logically follows from your approach, necessitating a material / physical existence of "the creator", but I fear you will just ignore it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Umm, the "I just can't see it!" response isn't a rebuttal. It is a declaration of an inability to comprehend or to see or a refusal; to do so.

I asked you a question and this is not an answer to that question.
I can only repeat my quesiont: if there's no way to see or perceive X, then how can you know that it's there?

Now you are writing your own book on the rules of argumentation. A rebuttal via counter-evidence or logic isn't required in your system?

In order for counter-evidence to be given, pro-evidence needs to be given first.
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

Really? Make a statement like that to a professor of logic and see what he tells you.

A professor of logic would understand the concept of the burden of proof.

Better yet, go to a court of law and present your case and tell that to the judge.

"innocent until proven guilty".

Unfortunately you are describing exactly what atheists do when they propose abiogenesis, they offer no support for the justification.

"atheists" don't propose abiogenesis. Scientists do. Perhaps you should inform yourself...

http://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html

Constantly repeating myself becomes tiresome. Especially when I have been perfectly clear. Don't understand plain English? Take an English reading comprehension remedial class.

So, you refuse to clarify what premises you are talking about?
You know, even simply linking me to the post where you clearly mention these premises would be enough already.

That is an unwarranted suspicion stated without providing any logical reason for it.

And you suggest me to take reading comprehension classes?
It's in the very post you are replying to.......

I don't need any rebutals to premises that are unsupported.
I also don't need any rebutals to premises with insufficient or invalid evidence.

I don't need to prove your premises to be wrong. You rather need to prove them correct!

A rebutal of a claim doesn't necessarily imply proving the claim to be wrong.

I am not under any rhetorical obligation to respond to unwarranted suspicions.

True. But when you refuse to clarify what you are talking about............

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would you consider something that doesn't occur in nature and can't be forced to happen in a lab more feasible than something based on what is repeatedly observable in nature and which justifies the inductive leap that life comes only from previous life? I mean-you are entitled to your belief. However, I just can't understand your logic.

We know for a fact that complex organic molecules can form naturally.

Also, please point me to where we can "repeatedly observe" godlike entities creating life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

<...bluster...>

As expected, no links or names to substantiate his assertions, and no links or quotes to substantiate any allegations about my posts.

The characterization of God as a peeping tom wasn't one I was expecting to see on a Christian forum though...

p.s. what's with this obsession with the idea of spying on people naked? I see I'm not the only one Radrook has responded to with this - and here too.

 

[The Cadet]

Most people consider it silly that you consider it not having been clearly demonstrated in nature yet.

And if you get any random three people from around the world who do see it clearly demonstrated in nature, chances are very good that you'll get three different explanations of what the being demonstrated is. But by all means, if you see a clear demonstration of you poorly-defined hypothesis in nature, let's hear it! Maybe you, after thousands of years of religious bickering, can finally provide conclusive evidence of your particular god belief, and we can tell all the other religions to pack it in! I won't hold my breath, personally.

 

[Radrook]

The only reason offered for proposing this dimension is that you believe it.

I don't need to refute that which isn't even supported in the first place.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

Your "what-if's" and question begging only deserves pointing out.

What I believe isn't what you are claiming that I believe.
So the burden of proving that I believe what you are claiming that I believe isn't on me.
The burden of proving that I believe what you are claiming that I believe is on you.

As for what ifs, those what ifs are from your physicists.
So I suggest you take your gripe to them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What I believe isn't what you are claiming that I believe.

It was your post.... are you saying that you were sharing "concepts" of "dimensions" that you don't even believe yourself?

So the burden of proving that I believe what you are claiming that I believe isn't on me.
The burden of proving that I believe what you are claiming that I believe is on you.

If you don't actually believe the things you said in your post about "dimensions", then why did you write it?

As for what ifs, those what ifs are from your physicists.

No, they aren't.
You are free to cite papers to support this assertion of yours.

Personally, I have never seen any physics papers talking about dimensions where god lives or where "souls" go after their bodies die.

 

[Loudmouth]

String Theory has been mentioned in relation to those idea. I provided video and links. If those aren't suffice then you need to personally contact your atheist scientists and personally inquire.

That doesn't address what I wrote.

You have insisted that we are saying it is impossible for there to be a realm or other universe that contains a deity. None of us have said that. What we are saying is that there needs to be evidence for such a realm before we accept it as true. Can you please tell us why our position is unfair?

Show me where I concluded something instead of qualifying it with "perhaps" "possibly" "it is thought" and other expressions of that kind. That is a strawman accusation.

So you don't believe that there is a deity in another realm?

BTW
Ignoring the links and video showing your scientists proposing what I have just said they are proposing doesn't constitute a rebuttal. It's called the Mr Magoo strategy.

This isn't a recommended viewing thread. Please present the arguments in your own words. Those are the rules of this forum.

 

[Radrook]

And if you get any random three people from around the world who do see it clearly demonstrated in nature, chances are very good that you'll get three different explanations of what the being demonstrated is. But by all means, if you see a clear demonstration of you poorly-defined hypothesis in nature, let's hear it! Maybe you, after thousands of years of religious bickering, can finally provide conclusive evidence of your particular god belief, and we can tell all the other religions to pack it in! I won't hold my breath, personally.

Your premise is seriously flawed on two levels.
It is self contradictory and blatantly untrue.

Bickering over an ID's nature means non-belief in an ID.
Theists bicker over the ID''s nature
Theists don't believe in an ID.


The exact nature of the ID and religious bickering over its identity are totally irrelevant because the only thing I am pointing out is that they conclude an ID. Scientists who disagree over the nature of gravity aren't denying the existence of gravity-are they? Or those who might bicker concerning the nature of dark energy or dark matter aren't placing their existence in any doubt0-are they? The irrelevancy in such a case is clear-isn't it? No problem understanding me there there since it is about science-right? So why is it that whenever the subject is about an reasoning is suddenly suspended and irrationality kicks in?

BTW
I haven't proposed anything that isn't justified by what your physicists suggest and acknowledge.
If indeed what they have suggested and what they acknowledge concerning their own limited understanding of reality warrants criticism, then criticize their declarations and not the conclusions which are justifiably based on those declarations simply because you feel that those conclusions threaten your atheistic preferences.

 

[Radrook]

As expected, no links or names to substantiate his assertions, and no links or quotes to substantiate any allegations about my posts.

The characterization of God as a peeping tom wasn't one I was expecting to see on a Christian forum though...

p.s. what's with this obsession with the idea of spying on people naked? I see I'm not the only one Radrook has responded to with this - and here too.

I already provided links and a video.
The characteristic of God as a peeping Tom wasn't my idea. I brought it up repeatedly because it was offered as a reason why the idea of an ID is unacceptable-nothing more. If indeed I brought it up to a person who had not proposed it was by mistake and not because I am trying to mention the ridiculous concept to everyone involved in the discussion.


BTW
Are you jumping into this discussion without having even read what has been previously been posted and making assumptions?

Very bad idea. It leads to false accusations that are easily proven bogus.
It also raises suspicions on whether you really are aware of the facts but are attempting to misrepresent anyway.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I haven't proposed anything that isn't justified by what your physicists suggest and acknowledge.
If indeed what they have suggested and what they acknowledge concerning their own limited understanding of reality warrants criticism, then criticize their declarations and not the conclusions which are justifiably based on those declarations simply because you feel that those conclusions threaten your atheistic preferences.

Once more... I am unaware of any physics paper that posits a dimension where a deity exists.

You keep claiming the opposite.
Please cite such a paper.

 

[Loudmouth]

The exact nature of the ID and religious bickering over its identity are totally irrelevant because the only thing I am pointing out is that they conclude an ID.

And they do so without any evidence to support such a conclusion.

Scientists who disagree over the nature of gravity aren't denying the existence of gravity-are they? Or those who might bicker concerning the nature of dark energy or dark matter aren't placing their existence in any doubt0-are they?

Scientists have evidence for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. Big difference.

So why is it that whenever the subject is about an reasoning is suddenly suspended and irrationality kicks in?

The only lack of reasoning is those who conclude there is an ID without any evidence to support it.

BTW
I haven't proposed anything that isn't justified by what your physicists suggest and acknowledge.

How is the creation of life on Earth by an ID justified by anything that physicists have proposed?

 

[Radrook]

It was your post.... are you saying that you were sharing "concepts" of "dimensions" that you don't even believe yourself?

If you don't actually believe the things you said in your post about "dimensions", then why did you write it?

What I don't believe is what you are saying I believe.

No, they aren't.
You are free to cite papers to support this assertion of yours.

No need to. It's common knowledge and feigning ignorance of common knowledge will not send me int a useless frenzy of research over something that is easily confirmed by simply googling.

BTW

Smacks of bias!
You are free to cite papers to support your assertions as well yet you don't.
I don't see atheists here nor anywhere else citing papers over their abiogenesis preferences and the subject has been discussed in other websites-so I know that it isn't done.
So if that is their modus operandi, which is perfectly OK by you, why should the identical modus operandi be suddenly deemed any different simply because it isn't being employed by an atheist. Hmmmmm?

Personally, I have never seen any physics papers talking about dimensions where god lives or where "souls" go after their bodies die.

Wonder why? That is a real enigma worth of deep research.
Could it be because they never have? Hmmmm?
Could it also be that I don't defend those two ideas because I never expressed them?
The truth is that I never made those two claims. Those are your ideas in reference to what physicists have said or written, not mine.

BTW

A thread where a people express their own controversial ideas and then proceed to criticize them would be far more satisfying to the participants and less time-wasting.

 

[Radrook]

And they do so without any evidence to support such a conclusion.



Scientists have evidence for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. Big difference.



The only lack of reasoning is those who conclude there is an ID without any evidence to support it.



How is the creation of life on Earth by an ID justified by anything that physicists have proposed?

The exact process that scientists used to proclaim their belief in the existence of dark matter is the exact process that theists use to proclaim the existence of an ID-observation of patterns followed by a justified inductive leap.

That you claim evidence for atheists and non-evidence for theists even though they reached he same conclusion based on the same process can only sugnify the following things:

1. Unfamiliarity with the inductive process upon which theories are based
2. Unfamiliarity with the basics of the scientific method itself
3. Purposeful irrationality or a cancellation of cogent reasoning in order to avoid obvious conclusions found unacceptable
for atheistic reasons..

 

[Loudmouth]

The exact process that scientists used to proclaim their belief in the existence of dark matter is the exact process that theists use to proclaim the existence of an ID-observation of patterns followed by a justified inductive leap.

What process is that?

How do theists use the spin rate of galaxies to come to the conclusion of an ID? How do theists use the bending of starlight around objects to come to the conclusion of an ID?

That you claim evidence for atheists and non-evidence for theists even though they reached he same conclusion based on the same process can only sugnify the following things:

That you can't present any evidence for an ID confirms my suspicions.

 

[Radrook]

We know for a fact that complex organic molecules can form naturally.

Also, please point me to where we can "repeatedly observe" godlike entities creating life.

That isn't abiogenesis.
The assumptions based on it are wishful thinking and nothing more.

Please show me why conclusions based inductive reasoning are perfectly OK for atheist scientists but suddenly not OK for theists. Can you do that?