Kevinb

I'm not going to drown you in a tsunami of explanations or statements, Kevin. I will just tell you that YOU, ME, and everything else that exists make up the evidence you are looking for. John 1:3 KJV All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made Hi glory. As someone who doesn't thus far buy into any religious beliefs I hope you see I don't see the bible as proof of the bible claims..it's kinda circular. An Indian could have given me a verse from their book. Muslim from Quran and so on. What needs to be done is to link the religious claims to reality...ie God did it and my God especially.. here's the causational evidence. What you have given me is just your faith and faith in the absence of evidence gets me to every religion and scripture.

Well I'll always consider any evidence you have God did it? Everything we've discovered thus far operates under laws of physics in the case I cited for supernova... this isn't random. I'm amazed by supernova and black holes... how do you get to add God did it. Let's not forget Einstein via physics and mathematics showed black holes must exist 70 years before observation. This doesn't disprove God or gods as it's unfalsifiable but it takes away the need to believe in God causality. I don't see how to add God did it... unless you've evidence I've not heard?

Thanks for the link... the universe is truly amazing. Stars can also form black holes over certain masses based upon laws of physics. . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit How are we justified throwing God in? How can I corroberate adding that claim?

You assert this equivocation fallacy often. We could say we've same observations.. investigation has never shown supernatural. however theists then add an additional claim ie a god that atheists see no warrant based on no good evidence to add... unless you have some? The default is to not believe this claim without evidential warrant. So basically a theist would test and investigate the natural world the same as an atheist ...a theist then adds the additional claim ie God or gods... the atheist then rejects this... no good evidence... can't investigate the supernatural.. assertions that can't be falisified and so on

Hi tristen. Hope you're well. I agree on the evidence definition. Although you need to demonstrate the link from the observational evidence to God did it then your version of god did it...ie Christianity over other religions and their gods and the scientific. This involves a causational link that can be investigatible and falisifiable. So you could interpret to anything .... any God... any religiosity or can you demonstrate causation...null hypothesis ? Faith as defined is.. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - wiki Or Hebrews 11.1 faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see - bible. This isn't not how scientific understanding works although theists attempt to equivocate they are comparable explanations. So the scientific.. explanation of universal to planetary origins.. ie big bang was lead by Einsteinian physics initially...(even Einstein didn't like where the physics lead)... that's been tested... attempted to be falisified..corroberated by cmb and red shift and more. What can I observe to substantiate the God hypothesis and the Christian genesis version thereafter plus I'd need to disprove the scientific of course. Not observed directly but can be investigated... similar to investigation of a crime scene. Dumping supernatural claims into the past.. where has that ever helped or progressed understanding superseding naturalistic? Confidence is predicted then falisifiable by facts ie observable evidence. How do I get to your or any other religious claims other than just assertion? Indeed as bonky said religions have already started with all answers before investigation. Believes forming evidence instead of evidence forming beliefs. Plus unlike the laws of physics that initiated big bang theory. Any unfalsifiable God did it claim...we could just assert magic pixies did it with the same lack of causational evidence. This is again... how religious faith can get us to 1000s of gods. When I joined...i did have God notions of not an explanation of initiating a big bang therefore God.. chatting to others realised I've no good reason and worse it's a fallacy to get to a God this way...i thank Enoch for this... he helped me lots. Why are you forced... we aren't warranted in asserting conclusions in the absence of a justifiable warrant. The time to believe something is when we've evidence. Again so if you say your God did anything... what can I accept that on and reject other religions explanations? Its incorrect if your explanation is just assert God did it. If you really care about the truth the answer is don't know. This is interesting and highlights your presupposition and bias. There is no forced.. we're not at a pinnacle. Look what we've learned in 400 years. Here's to the next 400? Don't know is a valid answer until then. The secularists atheist models were lead there by demonstrable levels of evidence. Not an assertion from authority. The evidence discovered contradicts the biblical presupposition that's prior to looking for evidence. No...we shouldn't start with faith in a religious and then your particular religions context. I like how you admit it though. Your model I could start with a faith of another religion then fit evidence to it... or just deny the evidence coz it doesn't support my particular religious presupposition. This is leading the evidence rather than being lead by it again. Athiests don't add another claim ie some God or gods did it... science dumped this a long time ago...its not helped our understanding and there is no evidence so not justified to add. This is an equivocation again. Religious people have decided answers prior to evidence... as an atheists not believing in an extra God claim I'll be lead by the evidence... also I'd believe in a god when I have evidence. Another thread I was told... there is evidence just look around... well that's observation but you'd need to prove or have evidence a god did anything... making a claim gives a burden of proof. Okay how do we demonstrate anything supernatural. Plus theists deny knowledge and evidence because of this bpresupposing supernatural. How is supernatural logical minus any evidence whatsoever of it.

@Kevinb, you and I tend to agree with our views of science, but I'd like to follow up on Tristen's great post from earlier. The origin of the first life forms may seem like a "God of the gaps" argument, but there has been astonishingly little advance in the scientific explanation of abiogenesis since Miller and Urey, 60-70 years ago. Understanding of molecular biology has grown by leaps and bounds, but a reasonable explanation of the development of the first cells is completely lacking. Nobel Laureate Jack Szostak has been working on abiogenesis research for about a decade, with very little to show for it. He published a paper in 2016 that was considered another important piece of the puzzle, but recently had to make a retraction, after a critical experiment was determined to not be reproducible (yes, the peer review process does work!). At some point, a giant gap that just won't close may really be a physical gap. In my opinion, the incredible complexity of the simplest of cells is strong evidence for the existence of God, the Creator. The scientific evidence I see suggests that God set the amazing process of evolution in motion, but started with single cells, "dust of the eart Hi there one. Yep tristens post looks a good one.. and a big one. I'll try get to reply. On 2 threads at the mo.. as about the only current non believer .. I'm getting much to reply to. Thanks for book offer btw. For sure.. we agree on the scientific. Abiogenesis is massively difficult for sure. We have got as far as building blocks or some could come about naturally but not sufficiently to a self replicating molecule. Not sure I get a significance of time spent so much.... other than its a difficult hurdle..how long from evolution of humans to darwin? We'd agree on evolution..as an non believer I'd say I've no proof of a god doing anything... injecting that it hasn't helped us anywhere else that's been demonstrated so I'll not do it now. Can I ask.. pre darwin wouldn't you have just said God created life as per genesis account though in terms as an explanation for diversity? The default of any position has to be don't believe a claim till evidential warrant and demonstration? So pre darwin a default should be I don't have an explanation for diversity. Faith explanations... belief in a position without evidence shouldn't be compelling. Besides if we say we don't know something therefore God... therefore a particular God...how is that not an argument from ignorance fallacy? Should still give evidence for another claim too. Default being we don't know. If we don't know that's the answer rather than don't know therefore this. This is why it kinda feels like a God of the gaps if you accept evolution. Pre darwin God did it.. now we know about evolution so don't need God there but now God has lept into abiogenisis? Plus we've got that arguement from ignorance fallacy.

began? Not sure what you mean. I'll address everything i believe is faith. I'd define faith as the belief in a position without evidence. Or Hebrews 11 defines faith as the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Does this sound like a good pathway to what's true? Do you honestly think that's the same as scientific understanding? Faith as defined is what you need when you don't have good evidence. Faith gets us to 100s of gods and religions. I've a level of confidence that's proportional to evidence.

Kinda... the diversity of life by evolutionary process yes. When you say our senses.. if you just look at things in a superficial wow look how complicated life is..i don't know how this could possibly be natural and therefore intelligent agent did it is a fallacy. We are not required or justified in saying don't know yet therefore Gods ...or aliens did it etc. Still gotta have some evidence for hypothesis. You've heard of the God of the gaps right? I.e. don't know this therefore God..we discover naturalistic explanations... then well okay don't know this other thing therefore God and so on. Seen many do this shifting whatever their God is into some other remaining gap. If we don't have explanation we can't just say well no explanation but I'll accept one anyway on faith coz I don't have evidence.

Claims need to be demonstrated not just asserted is the point. You could just believe on faith people lived to 100s of years old.. who has the record... enoch was 800 plus right? The quran says Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.. happy to just believe that on faith? I'll wager not.

Science has shown the natural world is complex. Science has not shown God did it. Correct. That's abiogenisis. However cannot is a finite assertion. Thus far is more accurate or have you decided it never will? If you say it never will.. you have to demonstrate all variables and know all conditions and test. Quite a project. A philosopher ... really? Let me guess a creationist? How about an Christian Francis Collins whilst head of the genome project said dna evidence alone proves common ancestry. How do you prove an intelligent agent designed? Just looking isn't enough... how do you test that? A car looks designed right but we could investigate an agent there ...a factory... manufacture of alloys.. watching robots rivet panels together. We haven't seen cars form in nature... they don't reproduce. We have no evidence a god created life.. in this design way... you admit you animals change from one form to another over time. How are you leveraging in God did or guided? How do we test that? Yes the building blocks. Therefore agent? You know there is vestigial dna too... like humans have the dna to produce vit c as apes do and make egg yolks as reptiles do? Links to activate have been evolved out. Besides again... still gotta show God did this. Not sure where this gets us. If we don't know we never will? Are we at the finish line of scientific understanding? What might we achieve in 100 years...1000 years. You could be in medieval times and say with all our tech we can't fly. Yet now we can with our progress fly... at what speed.. gotta be a good few thousand miles an hour at our best. What so you don't know therefore God did it? That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. Please prove God doing this to avoid it. I was with you through the 1st bit but then just leapt to God did it again. So we have an observation... how do we prove an intelligent agent did it? Faith maybe?

These things can be demonstrated in reality.... things fall at a known speed under gravity. This is demonstrable and falsifiable... maybe peer reviewed by others. Please do this with your God claims... lots wife turned to a pillar of salt. Adam and eve claims. People living to many hundred years. No... you can't? Accept on faith? See the difference? In addition to the math correction...1 x 1 is 1 not 2. This is why it's testible.... you've inadvertently proven my point...priceless ?

Assertion from authority. Reading a book doesn't mean the book is true coz it says it is.

The path begins with just accepting the claim. You just do this with other claims? The path begins with a rational evaluation of evidence.. building theory.. testing it...is it falsifiable and so on. I see a book that's built on translations and copies of copies.. that's immoral.. that contradicts scientific understanding.. contradicts itself..that's also cobbled from myths and commandments that pre date it from other cultures.

Really several hundred? Names? The bible is true coz it's in the bible again. The quran is true coz it's in the quran and so on. In the 1917 famously a large crowd claimed the sun moved about as below https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun You seem to be citing the arguement from ad populum logical fallacy amongst other fallacies like the arguemmt from authority fallacy with a sprinkling of circular reasoning. Unless you actually care about truth and co oberating claims to be consistent you'd have to accept everything unsubstantiated. Additionally quoting bible verses doesn't help... if you'd been born and indoctrinated into some other religion you'd be quoting those verses.

Can you demonstrate He didn't? This is a shifting of the burden of proof. Nor can you not prove I don't have invisible pixies in my garden. If I made that claim it's not true till you disprove it. If I make such a claim I must prove it. So theists of all denominations and creeds make God claims they take on a burden of proof.

Blind faith. Fine if that is sufficient for you. I need evidence.. something that's demonstrable.. falsifiable. Faith gets humans to the 100s of gods. God claims are true coz the bible says? The quran is true coz the quran says. Harry potter is true coz Harry potter says. What is needed if you truly care about what is true is to prove it and causation in reality.

Assertion.. please demonstrate God did it which should be easy if it's true.

The elements most prominent in the human body are also the most prominent made in stars. Scientific theory says we're star dust/waste too right. Also you'd need to disprove all stellar formation and evolution then give actual evidence of a God doing any of this and causation. You've just asserted it. Where is the proof of god doing this from constituent atoms. How could you possibly demonstrate God causing this? This is why your assertion science proves God and the bible isn't correct. Additionally where are these elements listed in the bible? This is where those with God claims lead the evidence rather than be lead by it. Didn't someone pop from someone's rib too? Feel free to demonstrate that hypothesis also

More than plausible... it's the best model we have based on equations stemming from Einstein initially... added to by observation such as galaxy red shift and cmb. The armchair unqualified physicist that denys observations doesn't hold much water. Besides attempting to poke holes in the model because of any particular God presupposition bias doesn't ergo mean God... that's an arguement from ignorance/incredulity fallacy. Still need to demonstrate evidence for the God claim and causation not just assert it. The counter to big bang is only the fallacy cited then just add a God assertion and faith. Not convincing and not how we've ever got to theory and found evidence.... about anything. More science and evidence adds or tweaks not just trying to poke holes having already decided a God did it and just chucking in personal Faith.

Maybe...i don't say there definitely isn't. How do we get to proving an author and linking causation to one? We can investigate the physical and natural but how do we leap to supernatural? I understand you don't see a reason to reject. My view is I don't see a reason to believe... the default position here being not to believe in an author till you can demonstrate one...however believing one on faith will get you there course but I need the evidence... one can believe anything on faith. That said I still see these events in our galaxy or others as amazing and completely fascinating.

Did you see very recently... was in news in UK last few days 2 neutron stars colliding? Observed and the gravitational waves measured on earth...as per Einsteinian prediction. Observation as corroborated all over and the world's telescopes pointed to it. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/neutron-star-collision-gravitational-waves-gold-metal-precious-ligo-a8003146.html%3famp Everything so far discovered seems to be obeying physical law... we're yet to prove God made stars collide or supernova. These massive events throwing out material can cause new stars to be born in stellar nursery from triggering the collapse of material...new solar systems... planets and maybe life.

The problem is by what demonstrable mechanism do you refute one and accept another? Have you come across the logical fallacy special pleading? It helped me.

Indeed... yet this rate isn't observed of course. Plus by what mechanism is this evolution on steroids happening right? This is aside from a mass of probs that a 4k ish years ago global flood happened.

Agreed totally. However.. we problem is now faith isn't pathway to truth. I'll say again as it gets ignored. What mechanism can we use to throw out all other supernatural claims and keep this one. Other faiths think their supernatural is true also and logical. The mechanism of a particular faith seems to be where someone might be born and so indoctrinated into... and when in history they happen to be born. Humanities supernatural claims prior to better understanding are all different and cultural. If faith based we're subject to believe them all unless you've a mechanism to falsify. They can't all be right. They could all be wrong.

Additionally...a God you can't prove or test for... what's the difference between a God you can't prove exists and a God that doesn't exist. On a claim... what should the default position be? Especially a claim of supernatural beings with breaking the laws of Nature and physics stuff.. wow big claim ... I'd need something pretty compelling. Can't prove it and real to me assertions isn't compelling.