What if you seek and don't find?

[Archaeopteryx]

That is simply false.

Edited to add: http://worldview3.50webs.com/scientmethod.html

This isn't a reading club. Either integrate this source into an argument or don't present it at all. I'm not going to be bothered reading it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event/

See my previous link to these videos.

Demonstrate how I have stretched it to fit science.

You're interpreting "stretched" literally because the universe is expanding. If it weren't, you'd say that the Bible used the word "stretched" as a poetic metaphor.

See above.

Since you're fine with links, see above.

Why would it?

Because otherwise you're engaged in special pleading of the following kind: "Intelligence requires an explanation, except this one intelligence, which doesn't."

 

[Oncedeceived]

This isn't a reading club. Either integrate this source into an argument or don't present it at all. I'm not going to be bothered reading it.

It is really not very long but suit yourself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

See my previous link to these videos.

I will take a look but if they are long I probably won't take the time, I am sure there are articles that you could cite that would be as informative and not as time consuming?

You're interpreting "stretched" literally because the universe is expanding. If it weren't, you'd say that the Bible used the word "stretched" as a poetic metaphor.

This actually made me laugh. How do you interpret stretched as anything but stretched?
v. stretched, stretch·ing, stretch·es
v.tr.
1. To lengthen, widen, or distend: stretched the sweater out of shape.
2. To cause to extend from one place to another or across a given space: stretched the banner between two poles.
3. To make taut; tighten: stretched the tarpaulin until it ripped.
4. To reach or put forth; extend: stretched out his hand.
Your anti-Bible bais is showing.

Since you're fine with links, see above.

See above.

Because otherwise you're engaged in special pleading of the following kind: "Intelligence requires an explanation, except this one intelligence, which doesn't."

Have you heard of first cause?[/Quote]

 

[Davian]

Again butting in.
I'm not sure I am seeing the inconsistency in Once's position that you are trying to bring forward.
If you were to ask me, do I believe that an alien species as advanced as present day humans has or will exist in our universe I would say I don't know. The reality is that either they have or will, or that they have not and will not.
This hasn't stopped humans from sending messages out into space.
This seems fairly analogous to Once sending out a prayer to a being that might or might not exist.
She then believes that she got an answer back which is where she and I part company but I don't see that she would have to be convinced one way or the other to offer up the initial prayer.

Thoughts?

I don't see the analogy. We have a working example of a civilization capable of interstellar communication, via radio waves and laser light. We observe a multitude of stars with planetary systems. No leap of faith needed.

We have no such analog when it comes to biblical-type gods; by every objective measure to date, their existence has not been demonstrated. It would seem that Once would need to first believe in the existence of gods before she could appeal to a god.

This is about how we form beliefs; a more apt analogy would be a letter to Santa; as much as I would like free stuff, I cannot bring myself to write a sincere letter to Santa.

 

[Davian]

...

Edit: you are so good at shifting the subject (often to a related point, to be fair) that I almost didn't notice!
...

If she is good at it, it comes from years of practice.

 

[Athée]

We have no such analog when it comes to biblical-type gods; by every objective measure to date, their existence has not been demonstrated. It would seem that Once would need to first believe in the existence of gods before she could appeal to a god.

Agreed about lack of demonstrated gods.
That said wouldn't it be enough for her to believe that a God could possibly exist? If she believes it is possible then her prayer makes sense even if she is not convinced one way or the other.

 

[Davian]

So I have to question why you said what you said?

If you want to.

No. You nor anyone else has provided evidence that non-living matter could ever become living matter. Your links provide no evidence that non-living matter to non-living matter could ever become living matter.

Tell me what those links were about, in your own words. At least the ones you actually went though.

Now if you or anyone else has evidence of non-living matter EVER becoming living matter or non-living matter having EVER became living matter or that non-living matter that has become more non-living matter and then becoming living matter then present it or if you or anyone else having evidence that.

You said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter".

Prove it.

This is what I said. "Providing physical evidence for a non-physical Being compared to physical evidence for a physical process seems obvious would require different means in which to determine it." To ask for physical evidence for a non-physical Being can not be done in the same way as we find physical evidence to determine a physical process.

Can you provide a definition of "life" that includes the "non-physical" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

What would those means be?

It requires circumstantial evidence as there is a component that is non-physical. In the same way we have had to determine the existence of particles that are invisible to us, we use other evidences to support their existence.

In same way we determine that life arose by naturalistic means. Unless you would like to reject the use of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Davian]

I think Athee was spot on in his response to you about this.

Is it not possible for you to directly answer a question put to you?

 

[brinny]

What if you seek and don't find?

How many years does a person have to seek God before he/she can give up? What if a person prays, reads, converses, all that, but receives no answer?

It varies.

In the meantime, know this.

That God has a heart for you, and if we seek Him with all our hearts, we WILL find Him.

You are infinitely PRECIOUS in His sight.

Thank you for this thread. Precious question.

 

[Davian]

Agreed about lack of demonstrated gods.
That said wouldn't it be enough for her to believe that a God could possibly exist? If she believes it is possible then her prayer makes sense even if she is not convinced one way or the other.

The question is about belief. How did she come to believe that her prayer might work?

Keep in mind this arose from an earlier point that belief is not a conscious choice. I gather that Once wants belief to be a conscious choice, as - in her theology - we are [hypothetically] held accountable for what we believe by her God, but as her responses show, this does not seem to be how belief works in practice.

If she concedes that belief is not a conscious choice, it follows that her theology is morally bankrupt (we are [hypothetically] held accountable for things beyond our control).

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you want to.

Tell me what those links were about, in your own words. At least the ones you actually went though.

The bottom line is that due to chemical reactions in non-living matter it produces more non-living matter.

You said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter".

Prove it.

You seem to be confused. When someone makes a claim that you don't agree with, it is up to you to provide counter evidence to show how they are wrong. My claim is based on current and present research that has not demonstrated that non-living matter gave rise to living matter. My position is not one that can be demonstrated, how do you demonstrate that non-living matter could ever give rise to living matter when in fact it has never been demonstrated that it could?

Can you provide a definition of "life" that includes the "non-physical" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

The natural world contains the same materials in living and non-living things. That doesn't make the case that non-living materials give rise to life.

In same way we determine that life arose by naturalistic means. Unless you would like to reject the use of circumstantial evidence.

You reject circumstantial evidence it seems unless of course it is in favor of your own worldview.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is it not possible for you to directly answer a question put to you?

I did, you didn't like my answer...did you forget?

 

[Davian]

The bottom line is that due to chemical reactions in non-living matter it produces more non-living matter.

What is life, at its base, other than a series of chemical reactions?

You seem to be confused. When someone makes a claim that you don't agree with, it is up to you to provide counter evidence to show how they are wrong. My claim is based on current and present research that has not demonstrated that non-living matter gave rise to living matter. My position is not one that can be demonstrated, how do you demonstrate that non-living matter could ever give rise to living matter when in fact it has never been demonstrated that it could?

You said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?

The natural world contains the same materials in living and non-living things. That doesn't make the case that non-living materials give rise to life.

It is the only scientific explanation on the table, but what I said was, can you provide a definition of "life" that includes the "non-physical" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

You reject circumstantial evidence it seems unless of course it is in favor of your own worldview.

No, I reject circumstantial evidence when there are far more parsimonious explanations for the "truth" it purports to support.

 

[Davian]

I did, you didn't like my answer...did you forget?

No, you provided a question. Are you unclear on the difference?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is life, at its base, other than a series of chemical reactions?

Can you tell me? Obviously chemical reactions are still occurring and have been throughout history of the planet, but no non-living matter becoming living matter.

You said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?

Why would I?

It is the only scientific explanation on the table, but what I said was, can you provide a definition of "life" that includes the "non-physical" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

Where did I ever say that life includes the non-physical? Why would I need to provide a definition of life that includes it?

No, I reject circumstantial evidence when there are far more parsimonious explanations for the "truth" it purports to support.

I know that is not the case. You have rejected circumstantial evidence when there were NO explanations at all and no "truth" involved.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you provided a question. Are you unclear on the difference?

No, I answered so are you unclear on the difference?
Post #574
I said I didn't know if He was real or fictional. When I asked I asked just that: God if you are real I want to know. Show me if you exist. I didn't hold that He was real or fictional.

 

[Davian]

Can you tell me? Obviously chemical reactions are still occurring and have been throughout history of the planet, but no non-living matter becoming living matter.

As you said in your last post, "due to chemical reactions in non-living matter it produces more non-living matter."

Is that not, at its base, life, matter producing matter? As was explained in those videos that (I assume) you watched, the line between living and non-living matter is a fuzzy one.

Why would I?

Because you made the claim: "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter".

Substantiate it, or retract it.

Where did I ever say that life includes the non-physical? Why would I need to provide a definition of life that includes it?

In your theology, does not "life" come from your "God"? If that is your position, can you provide a definition of "life" that includes the "non-physical" (whatever that is) so you can stand by your declaration that "only life can come from life"?

I know that is not the case. You have rejected circumstantial evidence when there were NO explanations at all and no "truth" involved.

When?

 

[Davian]

No, I answered so are you unclear on the difference?
Post #574
I said I didn't know if He was real or fictional. When I asked I asked just that: God if you are real I want to know. Show me if you exist. I didn't hold that He was real or fictional.

I was referring to posts #578 (yours) and #579 (Athée)

 

[Athée]

The question is about belief. How did she come to believe that her prayer might work?

Keep in mind this arose from an earlier point that belief is not a conscious choice. I gather that Once wants belief to be a conscious choice, as - in her theology - we are [hypothetically] held accountable for what we believe by her God, but as her responses show, this does not seem to be how belief works in practice.

If she concedes that belief is not a conscious choice, it follows that her theology is morally bankrupt (we are [hypothetically] held accountable for things beyond our control).

So two thoughts as I was reading your post.
1. I think that she offered the prayer because she was convinced by the evidence that the existence of God was a possibility.

2. I have always said that belief is not a conscious choice, we a free convinced or not by the evidence. But what if I am wrong about this? What if it is the case that we can choose to believe something that evidence alone was not enough to convince us of... But by constant rehearsal and reinforcement of our communities we eventually convince ourselves that it is true. At that point we can say we believe it even though the process started with a concious choice.

Thoughts?