The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

LOL, an intelligent design that is done by people that have proven to have design things intelligently,....the question remains, who design the designer?

Science does tend to ask a lot more questions than it answers.

 

[JD16]

Science does tend to ask a lot more questions than it answers.

I'm with you on that, but I'm glad its that way, without curiosity, we as the human species would never explore and discover new and exciting things, and without the drive to find out, we will remain stagnant,...so go science! woot!

 

[Michael]

Not if moving through space did not involve time like it does here! So..prove time exists there and existes exactly the same or face the fact you do not know and are preaching nonsense.

Sorry, but I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you again. This sentence is where you deviate from physics and reality in general. Moving though spacetime always involves time in GR theory dad. Space and time are related in GR.

You still end up handwaving away all types of radiometric decay for goofy reasons too.

Why?

Just so you can remain personally compliant with your own personal subjective interpretation of the book of Genesis?

 

[dad]

Sorry, but I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you again. This sentence is where you deviate from physics and reality in general.

YOU deviate from physics and reality when you claim present laws apply in the unknown state past with no proof. Personally I would not go down that godless rabbit hole of rejecting what the bible says for no reason.

Moving though spacetime always involves time in GR theory dad.

False. Angels require none.
Nor do we know spacetime as we know it exists in deep space. Period. Let's see you prove it or face devastating defeat here. Also, if time was different moving would not take as much time in deep space! In all ways you fail.

Space and time are related in GR.

Not in deep space though till we see the proof. GR is fishbowl rules!

You still end up handwaving away all types of radiometric decay for goofy reasons too.

False YOU handwave IN decay when none existed to try to explain daughter material by decay rather than creation.

 

[Michael]

YOU deviate from physics and reality when you claim present laws apply in the unknown state past with no proof.

How do you even convince yourself of such silliness? What "unknown state past"? You made up that whole idea 'with no proof'. What are you talking about?

Time and space are related in GR theory dad. There's no evidence that the relationships we observe today have ever been different.

Personally I would not go down that godless rabbit hole of rejecting what the bible says for no reason.

The Bible says many things to many individuals and individuals are not infallible.

False. Angels require none.

I'm discussing time in GR theory dad, not angels. You and I are made of matter and energy in our present physical forms.

Nor do we know spacetime as we know it exists in deep space. Period.

We know how light behaves in the lab on Earth, and we have plenty of evidence that our own galaxy is larger than 10,000 light years wide. You claimed that the speed of light has never changed, so how do we observe a single galaxy that is over 100,000 years across?

Let's see you prove it or face devastating defeat here.

LOL! You are amusing.

Also, if time was different moving would not take as much time in deep space! In all ways you fail.
Not in deep space though till we see the proof. GR is fishbowl rules!

You can't even explain the size of our *own* galaxy yet dad. Why worry about cosmology theory yet?

False YOU handwave IN decay when none existed to try to explain daughter material by decay rather than creation.

We observe their decay patterns in the lab dad. You're just grasping at straws.

The fact that you believe your "interpretation" of Genesis to be "flawless" requires you to rationalize away about 95 percent of physics.

 

[Zoii]

LOL, an intelligent design that is done by people that have proven to have design things intelligently,....the question remains, who design the designer?

Michael's argument is a fair one though. We do not observe the spontaneous generation of self replicating cells in nature. We have never captured this in the past 40 or so years where this has been more closely scrutinized (as far as I am aware and I dont purport to be an expert...just reasonably well informed). So if the phenomena which is the generation of all life isnt observed then it does lend support to the proposition (though not prove), that theres an unknown source at play here - for now many here would call it God.

I dont find the evolution from single cell to complex organisms incredulous in the slightest and I totally accept the theory. What I do find incredulous though is that a bi-layer of phospho-lipid forms spontaneously to form a cell membrane and that at that point it encapsulated DNA and organelles (which themselves are highly complex eg mitochondria). Because without those components you do not have a self replicating cell and if you do not have that then you do not have evolution..... This is the one bit I find fascinating and exciting and retains my belief in God.

 

[JD16]

Michael's argument is a fair one though. We do not observe the spontaneous generation of self replicating cells in nature. We have never captured this in the past 40 or so years where this has been more closely scrutinized (as far as I am aware and I dont purport to be an expert...just reasonably well informed). So if the phenomena which is the generation of all life isnt observed then it does lend support to the proposition (though not prove), that theres an unknown source at play here - for now many here would call it God.

I dont find the evolution from single cell to complex organisms incredulous in the slightest and I totally accept the theory. What I do find incredulous though is that a bi-layer of phospho-lipid forms spontaneously to form a cell membrane and that at that point it encapsulated DNA and organelles (which themselves are highly complex eg mitochondria). Because without those components you do not have a self replicating cell and if you do not have that then you do not have evolution..... This is the one bit I find fascinating and exciting and retains my belief in God.

Its all well and good that you can reconcile your faith in God with the ToE and I wish more religious people were like you. What you mention above is true,....science currently do not know the answer to everything,...but the fact that we constantly learn more about the world we live in makes it interesting for me.....

Would we eventually know the answer regarding the origins of life? Who knows? And even if we never ever find out, we should keep looking, we may discover things that improve our lives, like a cure for certain diseases and such. Atheists like me are pretty comfortable with not knowing, but I also understand that believers find comfort in their faith. Its only when religion opposes science by trying to 'corrupt' young minds with creationism and reject evolution that I take issue with.

 

[Zoii]

Its all well and good that you can reconcile your faith in God with the ToE and I wish more religious people were like you. What you mention above is true,....science currently do not know the answer to everything,...but the fact that we constantly learn more about the world we live make it interesting for me.....

Would we eventually know the answer regarding the origins of life? Who knows? And even if we never ever find out, we should keep looking, we may discover things that improve our lives, like a cure for certain diseases and such. Atheists like me are pretty comfortable with not knowing, but I also understand that believers find comfort in their faith. Its only when religion opposes science by trying to 'corrupt' young minds with creationism and reject evolution that I take issue with.

I hate not knowing - I hate that one day I'll die and I will be like...Nooooooooooo I dont know all the answers yet. I want to come back in a million years and be like...whoa really thats how that bit works? But one thing I am very convinced of is that this is an old universe, an old earth and we evolved. That Im totally good with. I am also fascinated with and totally accept the theorem of singularity AKA big bang. For me it again fosters a belief of a universal force (which I am happy to label god). So yeah I dont have this struggle of science v religion. To me they embrace and I am totally frustrated with the desire to reject what is obvious scientific merit.

 

[JD16]

I hate not knowing - I hate that one day I'll die and I will be like...Nooooooooooo I dont know all the answers yet. I want to come back in a million years and be like...whoa really thats how that bit works? But one thing I am very convinced of is that this is an old universe, an old earth and we evolved. That Im totally good with. I am also fascinated with and totally accept the theorem of singularity AKA big bang. For me it again fosters a belief of a universal force (which I am happy to label god). So yeah I dont have this struggle of science v religion. To me they embrace and I am totally frustrated with the desire to reject what is obvious scientific merit.

Ha, thats good, you have a natural curiosity and its because of people like you, we get to live in such a comfortable world due to the advancement of science. But also keep in mind, nobody knows everything, even if you dedicate a lifetime in pursuit of knowledge, you can't ever scratch the surface on the body of knowledge that we have accumulated so far, much less to say, we are learning more each passing day,...what I'm saying is, seek knowledge, but don't forget to stop and smell the flowers sometimes Life is worth living, and if you're thinking of coming back,...maybe Buddhism might suit you better lolz

 

[dad]

How do you even convince yourself of such silliness? What "unknown state past"?

Either prove what nature and laws existed or it means you do not know and it is unknown.

Time and space are related in GR theory dad.

No. They are not actually, out in the far parts of the universe that we know actually. If so prove it. No one cares what one believes, the issue is your unsupported claims that involve things way way out of your little zone.

There's no evidence that the relationships we observe today have ever been different.

Or not. So we believe what we like. I chose to try and fit Scripture.

The Bible says many things to many individuals and individuals are not infallible.

The Holy Ghost spoke through men and He is infallible. Care to say He didn't?? Ha.

I'm discussing time in GR theory dad, not angels.

I am not. I am discussing what is know about time in far space.
If you claim GR covers it prove it. Show how.

You and I are made of matter and energy in our present physical forms.

And spirit. So?

We know how light behaves in the lab on Earth,

Whooopee do.

and we have plenty of evidence that our own galaxy is larger than 10,000 light years wide.

No evidence. You have a belief time exists everywhere as it does on earth and our solar system. Sorry, a belief is not knowledge or evidence.

You claimed that the speed of light has never changed,

No. I said I never was the one claiming it did. I don't need it to have changed! But if it ever turns out that it did, it would not bother me.

so how do we observe a single galaxy that is over 100,000 years across?

By having a few drinks and a lot of imagination? Obviously you first assume time exists there and here the same. But unless you prove it no distances can be known. So you have no 'years' across.

You can't even explain the size of our *own* galaxy yet dad.

Yes I can. It is unknown! That beats science, because science thought it knew and did not!

We observe their decay patterns in the lab dad.

Is your lab out on the edges of the universe? Is your lab back in Noah's time? If not, who cares what goes on there? You think the word lab is supposed to impress??

The fact that you believe your "interpretation" of Genesis to be "flawless" requires you to rationalize away about 95 percent of physics.

False. Physics is fne. I accept it all. Here. Now..

 

[Kylie]

False. My claim that you have no evidence for your pasta state past used by science is proven. You post none. We already discussed how it is useless to pretend you did sometime somewhere also, cause you posted nothing but belief based fake news.

Even if that was true (it's not), you still have not posted a single shred of evidence supporting your views.

Post evidence for your views or you have nothing.

 

[quatona]

Michael's argument is a fair one though. We do not observe the spontaneous generation of self replicating cells in nature. We have never captured this in the past 40 or so years where this has been more closely scrutinized (as far as I am aware and I dont purport to be an expert...just reasonably well informed). So if the phenomena which is the generation of all life isnt observed then it does lend support to the proposition (though not prove), that theres an unknown source at play here - for now many here would call it God.

To me, replacing "unknown" by another term doesn´t come with any epistemological progress nor is an explanation of sorts.

I dont find the evolution from single cell to complex organisms incredulous in the slightest and I totally accept the theory. What I do find incredulous though is that a bi-layer of phospho-lipid forms spontaneously to form a cell membrane and that at that point it encapsulated DNA and organelles (which themselves are highly complex eg mitochondria). Because without those components you do not have a self replicating cell and if you do not have that then you do not have evolution.....

Indeed, we don´t seem to know (yet?) if and how this could happen.

This is the one bit I find fascinating and exciting and retains my belief in God.

To each their own. To me, however, even with "Goddidit" we still don´t have these explanations the lack of which makes the generation of life so incredulous. None of the fascinating questions is answered, and on top we get even more incredulous assumptions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Assuming we do get there during my lifetime, it will just be "an" example of "intelligent design".

Like a freezer is an example of "intelligent freezing", which somehow suggests that the North Pole and the Arctic are not natural environments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Michael's argument is a fair one though. We do not observe the spontaneous generation of self replicating cells in nature. We have never captured this in the past 40 or so years where this has been more closely scrutinized (as far as I am aware and I dont purport to be an expert...just reasonably well informed). So if the phenomena which is the generation of all life isnt observed then it does lend support to the proposition (though not prove), that theres an unknown source at play here - for now many here would call it God.

Argument from ignorance.

I dont find the evolution from single cell to complex organisms incredulous in the slightest and I totally accept the theory. What I do find incredulous though is that a bi-layer of phospho-lipid forms spontaneously to form a cell membrane and that at that point it encapsulated DNA and organelles (which themselves are highly complex eg mitochondria). Because without those components you do not have a self replicating cell and if you do not have that then you do not have evolution..... This is the one bit I find fascinating and exciting and retains my belief in God.

Argument from incredulity.

I suggest you people stick to "we don't know" when we don't know.

Ignorance of a thing is never evidence, not even merely suggestive, for another thing.

 

[Zoii]

Argument from ignorance.



Argument from incredulity.

I suggest you people stick to "we don't know" when we don't know.

Ignorance of a thing is never evidence, not even merely suggestive, for another thing.

I love my religion. I love the scientific approach. And I like the capacity to argue a point from reasoning. I'm not perfect at this but I find when I argue something from a position of simply attempting to belittle the people I oppose, all it does is lessen myself for having a lack of skill at debate, philosophy and reasoning. But most of all it lessens me because I haven't adhered to what I believe is a code of conduct that all humans should strive for - respect - even when we disagree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I love my religion. I love the scientific approach

Great! But when you say things like "we don't know how this thing here occurs, therefor there must be some god or whatever involved..." or even only "..., therefor it supports to the god claim", then you are abbandoning that approach and entering the logical fallacy approach.

And I like the capacity to argue a point from reasoning. I'm not perfect at this but I find when I argue something from a position of simply attempting to belittle the people I oppose, all it does is lessen myself for having a lack of skill at debate, philosophy and reasoning. But most of all it lessens me because I haven't adhered to what I believe is a code of conduct that all humans should strive for - respect - even when we disagree.

If this is your way of saying that I was "belittling" you by pointing out that you were giving arguments of ignorance, I heavily disagree.

There's nothing "belittling" about pointing out logical fallacies in an argument.

The way you phrased those things, they were textbook examples of such fallacies.

Not knowing the answer is not knowing the answer and nothing else.
Ignorance on a thing is not a substitute for evidence to support any given claim.

 

[Zoii]

Great! But when you say things like "we don't know how this thing here occurs, therefor there must be some god or whatever involved..." or even only "..., therefor it supports to the god claim", then you are abbandoning that approach and entering the logical fallacy approach.




If this is your way of saying that I was "belittling" you by pointing out that you were giving arguments of ignorance, I heavily disagree.

There's nothing "belittling" about pointing out logical fallacies in an argument.

The way you phrased those things, they were textbook examples of such fallacies.

Not knowing the answer is not knowing the answer and nothing else.
Ignorance on a thing is not a substitute for evidence to support any given claim.

Is it that you deliberately chose to ignore my post explaining the scientific facts I hold to and that there is a discrimination between belief and fact. I have stated my beliefs...and the scientific facts I hold to. In other words I well discriminate fact versus belief and have posted this. So all I can tell you...and this is up to you to reflect on or not.... is when you phrase things in the way you do, I interpret your way of arguing as an ambition to belittle. Your job now is to ask...gee does that happen to me a lot and do other people think that of me too. If it doesn't..cool carry on...if it does well that's up to you now to fix it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it that you deliberately chose to ignore my post explaining the scientific facts I hold to and that there is a discrimination between belief and fact.

No. I'm replying directly to what you actually said:

So if the phenomena which is the generation of all life isnt observed then it does lend support to the proposition (though not prove), that theres an unknown source at play here - for now many here would call it God.

Emphasis mine.
No, not knowing (yet) how life arises does NOT lend support to ANY proposition whatsoever.
It is an argument from ignorance to say that it does.

Not knowing is not knowing. Ignorance is not a substitute for evidence, nore is it evidence by itself.

I have stated my beliefs...and the scientific facts I hold to.

Indeed you did. And I have no problems with that. The thing I have a problem with is that you called this "fair". It's not fair. It's not reasonable.
The problem is that you motivated your beliefs with the current ignorance of science.

You clearly drew a "justification" between your belief on the one hand and scientific ignorance on the other.

As in "my beliefs are reasonable because ignorance on X and Y".

In other words I well discriminate fact versus belief and have posted this. So all I can tell you...and this is up to you to reflect on or not.... is when you phrase things in the way you do, I interpret your way of arguing as an ambition to belittle.

I didn't address your personhood. Nore was I condescending. I didn't call you stupid. I didn't attack you in any way. I merely pointed out that your reasoning / justification for the beliefs you hold is based on fallacious logic (at least, that's how it was in that specific post)

Call that "belittling" if you want to. But it's not. And it most certainly isn't intended as such.

Your job now is to ask...gee does that happen to me a lot and do other people think that of me too. If it doesn't..cool carry on...if it does well that's up to you now to fix it.

Actually, it DOES happen to me a lot. Very consistently. But ONLY when the subject of discussion is the belief of theists, more specifically, their reasons / justification for their belief.

Maybe you should think about that.

I don't argue differently with theists on that specific subject then I do with anyone on any subject. Yet, it's only in that little niche that people take it personally.

Perhaps the problem is not the way I express myself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Science does tend to ask a lot more questions than it answers.

To be expected when the entire system is based on encouraging questions.

 

[Zoii]

No. I'm replying directly to what you actually said:

So if the phenomena which is the generation of all life isnt observed then it does lend support to the proposition (though not prove), that theres an unknown source at play here - for now many here would call it God.

Emphasis mine.
No, not knowing (yet) how life arises does NOT lend support to ANY proposition whatsoever.
It is an argument from ignorance to say that it does.

Not knowing is not knowing. Ignorance is not a substitute for evidence, nore is it evidence by itself.




Indeed you did. And I have no problems with that. The thing I have a problem with is that you called this "fair". It's not fair. It's not reasonable.
The problem is that you motivated your beliefs with the current ignorance of science.

You clearly drew a "justification" between your belief on the one hand and scientific ignorance on the other.

As in "my beliefs are reasonable because ignorance on X and Y".



I didn't address your personhood. Nore was I condescending. I didn't call you stupid. I didn't attack you in any way. I merely pointed out that your reasoning / justification for the beliefs you hold is based on fallacious logic (at least, that's how it was in that specific post)

Call that "belittling" if you want to. But it's not. And it most certainly isn't intended as such.



Actually, it DOES happen to me a lot. Very consistently. But ONLY when the subject of discussion is the belief of theists, more specifically, their reasons / justification for their belief.

Maybe you should think about that.

I don't argue differently with theists on that specific subject then I do with anyone on any subject. Yet, it's only in that little niche that people take it personally.

Perhaps the problem is not the way I express myself.

Im 16 and I'm finding my way through a love of science and an identity in spirituality. I explained myself in 1228, 1256 and 1248. So when you say to me "I suggest you people stick to "we don't know" when we don't know ", any reasonable person would think that your intent isnt to highlight scientific strength. Have a read back how you wrote to me and ask yourself is there a more positive way you could have got your point across instead of the first post to me of .....Argument from ignorance... because actually Im not ignorant at all. If I do say so myself Im quite smart. Ask yourself was that a constructive response or was it a cheap shot.