Levels of EvC belief

[OldWiseGuy]

And if we then find evidence of it elsewhere, such as at Mars, your excuse will then change to.........what, exactly?

I'll cross that bridge if I get to it.

Sometimes I think science is keen to find life elsewhere so they can finally put an end to this silly religion thing. I think those resources are better used to improve life on earth rather than prove life exists 'out there'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Support this with evidence, data and define the terms you are using.

Otherwise, its completely void of content.

So far the evidence and data shows a lifeless universe out there. "Supernatural" means beyond any natural explanation (does science have an explanation of the appearance of life?).

 

[ianw16]

I'll cross that bridge if I get to it.

Sometimes I think science is keen to find life elsewhere so they can finally put an end to this silly religion thing. I think those resources are better used to improve life on earth rather than prove life exists 'out there'.

Which is essentially a non-answer. You're just playing the same game a lot of pseudoscientists play - a 'god of the gaps' argument. Whenever a gap is plugged, they look for another one. It always comes down to, "I have no sensible explanation for x, y or z, however, your science cannot explain z at the moment, therefore my explanation (completely lacking any scientific merit) is valid." And, of course, it isn't. Hence the difference between science and pseudoscience, and religion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is that many people think it's an all or nothing proposition so it's useful to measure a spectrum. Also for option 1 you don't have to be certain that there is no God, you just have to believe that there isn't.

That seems contradictory.

To "believe" X, means that you consider X to be true.
That's a statement of certainty. At least, it's a statement of "too much" certainty for my taste.

I do not believe the claim that a god exists, true. ie: I don't accept it as a true-ism.
That does not necessarily mean or imply that thereof I positively believe that a god does NOT exist.
"god exists" and "god does not exist", are actually two seperate claims.
While mutually exclusive, rejecting one doesn't mean that you can assume that the other is accepted by default.

 

[ianw16]

So far the evidence and data shows a lifeless universe out there. "Supernatural" means beyond any natural explanation (does science have an explanation of the appearance of life?).

And, as I was writing, yet another 'god of the gaps' argument, just to prove my point! You might as well credit it all to the flying spaghetti monster. There is as much evidence of that as there is of any god(s).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is essentially a non-answer. You're just playing the same game a lot of pseudoscientists play - a 'god of the gaps' argument. Whenever a gap is plugged, they look for another one. It always comes down to, "I have no sensible explanation for x, y or z, however, your science cannot explain z at the moment, therefore my explanation (completely lacking any scientific merit) is valid." And, of course, it isn't. Hence the difference between science and pseudoscience, and religion.

You haven't plugged the ET gap, have you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And, as I was writing, yet another 'god of the gaps' argument, just to prove my point! You might as well credit it all to the flying spaghetti monster. There is as much evidence of that as there is of any god(s).

You do realize that most of the beliefs of mankind* cannot be proven scientifically. Why pick on just the religious ones?

*Mankind believes we can do everything wrong and everything will still turn out right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My beliefs are well supported.

By other people with the same or similar beliefs, perhaps; not by facts.

 

[ianw16]

You do realize that most of the beliefs of mankind* cannot be proven scientifically.

Such as? I 'believe' that the Earth is ~ 4.5 billion years old. That is proven scientifically. I 'believe' that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. That is proven scientifically. I 'believe' that we share ~ 98% of our DNA with chimps. That is proven scientifically.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You do realize that most of the beliefs of mankind* cannot be proven scientifically. Why pick on just the religious ones?

Because they make the most noise and cause the most annoyance?

 

[ianw16]

Why pick on just the religious ones?

I don't, personally. Any and all unscientific explanations for things are fair game to me. Religion, astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, electric universe woo, etc. I class them all pretty much in the same boat - of no relevance scientifically. If people want to believe in such things, that is up to them. It is only when they start claiming that there is some scientific basis to their beliefs that I will have a go at them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You do realize that most of the beliefs of mankind* cannot be proven scientifically. Why pick on just the religious ones?

Who says we do?

I certainly don't. I "pick" on anyone who holds faith-based / irrational beliefs.
Be it beliefs of theism or otherwise supernatural things, homeopathy, astrology, crystal healing, "contacting the dead", fortune tellers, tarrot card readers, ...

This, however, is a christian forum. So obviously we'll be discussing theistic beliefs, christian beliefs in particular, on this site.

Just like on a homeopathy site, you'll find discussions about - surprise! - homeopathy.

EDIT: before someone feels "offended" or something, I'll also add that if it happens to be ME who's holding faith-based and/or irrational beliefs, I actually WANT others to "pick on me" also, so that it may be brought to my attention that I believe irrational things. And instead of accusing them of "picking on me", I'll actually thank them for the heads-up....

 

[VirOptimus]

So far the evidence and data shows a lifeless universe out there. "Supernatural" means beyond any natural explanation (does science have an explanation of the appearance of life?).

So you couldnt support your statements. Big surprise.

 

[Trimeresurus]

None of it.
There is a god, but he did not create earth.
Creation is a sin and there is no heaven, not hell and no saviour.

 

[Jon Osterman]

I voted 5. It is a little difficult to tell what you mean by "intervened". For example, would you count sending Jesus as intervention? I think it probably counts.

But on a deeper level I think I think it is god that sets the physical laws, and in some sense, is the physical laws. So it isn't really an intervention but a constant engagement.

 

[RealityCheck01]

But... many people are taught that there is a connection and that they are in opposition.

Anyone can see the mistakes that make the spectrum in this thread invalid.
26 April 2018 Strathos: Evolution is not abiogenesis.
26 April 2018 Strathos: Evolution is science, not religion.

Those people will see that there is no real connection between the two and they are not in opposition. The connection is that they are different (religious faith and physical evidence based) ways to explain what we see in the world. Creationism hardly works. Evolution mostly works. Many people know the difference between religious faith and science and do not hold the 2 in opposition, e.g. the Christian biologists who use evolution in their work.

 

[Doveaman]

This is just an attempt to categorize the different gradations of beliefs regarding evolution and creationism, because there is quite a large spectrum. Starting from one extreme and proceeding to another:

You forgot this one: Re-Creation with Modification.

Man did not descend from apes (Descent with Modification), but was re-created from a prehistoric hominid 6 to 12 thousand years ago (Re-Creation with Modification).

 

[Strathos]

You forgot this one: Re-Creation with Modification.

Man did not descend from apes (Descent with Modification), but was re-created from a prehistoric hominid 6 to 12 thousand years ago (Re-Creation with Modification).

That's interesting, although with only 10 possible poll options there's no way I could have covered ever possible idea.

 

[ianw16]

You forgot this one: Re-Creation with Modification.

Man did not descend from apes (Descent with Modification), but was re-created from a prehistoric hominid 6 to 12 thousand years ago (Re-Creation with Modification).

Wow. That is some lazy creator/ designer. If it was God, then why base his ultimate creation on some semi-arboreal beast from the past? You'd have thought s/he might have made a bit of an effort!

 

[Doveaman]

Wow. That is some lazy creator/ designer. If it was God, then why base his ultimate creation on some semi-arboreal beast from the past? You'd have thought s/he might have made a bit of an effort!

You have it backwards.

It was always God's intention to create man from beast, that's why He created beast first.

The skeletal structure of hominids is ideal for bipedal man, and creating new flesh on old bones makes God very efficient.