A Retraction Regarding Abiogenesis

[Bonky]

On 1/5/2018 at 5:50 PM, Enoch2021 said:

Huh?  ...

(Matthew 24:36) "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Which part of this ^^^^^^^ is particularly confusing?

What if something didn't happen for 2000 years but then happened in the: 2001st, 2006th, 2022nd, 28,654th ad Nauseam... does that mean it still didn't happen?? 

Can you post the Syllogism Validating your claim here...?

It would help if you looked at the context of WHY I was stating this.  Hint, it was in response to something One Opinion said.  

On 1/5/2018 at 5:50 PM, Enoch2021 said:

How many times does it need to be Illustrated and Explained to you that Christianity isn't a Religion before you stop appealing to this??

Furthermore, It is "YOU" that adhere to "Religion"... Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism).  In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb Scientifically Falsified Religion.  Would you like me to show you step-by-step for the 1687th Time?

Christianity has ALL the hallmarks of religion.  Let me know if you're able to have a view that is different from what the Bible is telling you.  Christianity has a supernatural entity that is worshiped by the adherents of it's sacred scriptures.  Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions because it says people will have a personal "relationship" with God.   I find that personally [my opinion] to be one of the grand failures of Christianity [divine hiddenness].  So is Christianity just like all the other religions in what it believes...no.  Is it a religion?  YES.

Also my views on naturalism are not dogmatic.  I am completely open to considering non-natural explanations.  I just don't believe in accepting supernatural explanations because it's convenient.  Isaac Newton went to "God does it" explanations when he couldn't figure out how the planets stayed in orbit, later on a french scholar [LaPlace] provided a natural explanation for why the planets stay in orbit.   I look to the natural world for answers before I look to the supernatural, works pretty good.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

22 minutes ago, Bonky said:

It would help if you looked at the context of WHY I was stating this.

WHY??  You said: "Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years."

What "context" will change what your claim simply means? 

 

Quote

Hint, it was in response to something One Opinion said. 

Yes, I'm well aware who you were responding to.  It wouldn't have mattered if you were responding to the Dalai Lama or Joe Coffee at Walmart.

 

Quote

Christianity has ALL the hallmarks of religion.

Well the "HALLMARK" of Religion is "Belief without Evidence".  That's why it is Juxtaposed with "Science" because "Science" is based on EVIDENCE (Empirical).

However, Christians are admonished to: 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

This ^^^^^^ is the ANTITHESIS (Polar Opposite) of Religion; Ergo... Christianity is not a Religion. Simple

 

Quote

Let me know if you're able to have a view that is different from what the Bible is telling you.

Not without Evidence.

 

Quote

Christianity has a supernatural entity that is worshiped by the adherents of it's sacred scriptures.

Correct.

 

Quote

Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions because it says people will have a personal "relationship" with God.

Factually Incorrect: I (A Christian) never boast or even think this ^^^^^^^.  Ergo...Stereotype Fallacy.   

 

Quote

I find that personally [my opinion] to be one of the grand failures of Christianity [divine hiddenness].

1.  Well this conclusion is based on your Stereotype Premise (Directly Above); Ergo...it's Fallacious, rendering the whole charade invalid.

2.  "[divine hiddenness]" ??  This is a New Concept you slipped in here.  What do you mean specifically...?

 

Quote

So is Christianity just like all the other religions in what it believes...no.

Correct.  The Main Reason is...Christianity is NOT a Religion.  (SEE Above)

 

Quote

Is it a religion?  YES.

Factually Incorrect:  It's NOT a Religion (SEE: Full Explanation Above)

 

Quote

Also my views on naturalism are not dogmatic.

Naturalism (aka: Philosophical Naturalism/Realism/atheism) is Scientifically Falsified; IN TOTO.  Would you like me to Validate in Detail for the 1268th Time?

 

Quote

I am completely open to considering non-natural explanations.

  This is quite perplexing.

How can a Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (aka: atheist) who's Bedrock Cornerstone Foundation rests on: "Matter/Energy is ALL that there Is... consider "NON-Natural" (i.e., NON Matter/Energy) as an explanation for anything ??

 

regards

[Bonky]

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

WHY??  You said: "Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years."

What "context" will change what your claim simply means? 

One was essentially saying "after a while don't you just give up and concede ground to the opposition".  I don't think this is real hard Enoch.  Based on what ONE was saying, I could say the same kind of thing to theists that keep waiting for Jesus even though he hasn't returned yet.  I do NOT find this a compelling argument which is why I was giving it rhetorically.  

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well the "HALLMARK" of Religion is "Belief without Evidence".  That's why it is Juxtaposed with "Science" because "Science" is based on EVIDENCE (Empirical).

However, Christians are admonished to: 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

This ^^^^^^ is the ANTITHESIS (Polar Opposite) of Religion; Ergo... Christianity is not a Religion. Simple

When I look at the definitions of religion I'm not seeing "belief w/o evidence" as the primary definition [or even secondary]:

 

Quote

 

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:

faith, belief, worship, creed; More

• a particular system of faith and worship.

  plural noun: religions

   

  "the world's great religions"

 

 

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Factually Incorrect: I (A Christian) never boast or even think this ^^^^^^^.  Ergo...Stereotype Fallacy.   

Christians don't have a personal relationship with God????   

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

2.  "[divine hiddenness]" ??  This is a New Concept you slipped in here.  What do you mean specifically...?

New concept???  If you think it's  a new concept then you're pretty ill equipped to be a part of the conversation.  Read up on the argument from reasonable nonbelief (or the argument from divine hiddenness) .

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Correct.  The Main Reason is...Christianity is NOT a Religion.  (SEE Above)

If you go on pet definitions perhaps, I'm going by the standard dictionary and the normal usage of the word "religion" that I've been hearing for 45 years.

13 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

  This is quite perplexing.

How can a Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (aka: atheist) who's Bedrock Cornerstone Foundation rests on: "Matter/Energy is ALL that there Is... consider "NON-Natural" (i.e., NON Matter/Energy) as an explanation for anything ??

I'll explain this more for you as it appears you're struggling.  Going back to just moments ago when I said how I'm not dogmatic about "Matter/Energy is ALL that there is" would be the first clue.   

Edited January 8, 2018 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

3 minutes ago, Bonky said:

One was essentially saying "after a while don't you just give up and concede ground to the opposition".  I don't think this is real hard Enoch.    

 

Well it's not "Real Hard", just Painfully Irrelevant.

 

Quote

Based on what ONE was saying, I could say the same kind of thing to theists that keep waiting for Jesus even though he hasn't returned yet.

Yes you did, THEN...I showed quite explicitly that it was Nonsensical.  

 

Quote

I do NOT find this a compelling argument which is why I was giving it rhetorically. 

Well then, you should have Explicitly SAID SO. 

 

Quote

When I look at the definitions of religion I'm not seeing "belief w/o evidence" as the primary definition [or even secondary]:

 

Then Why is it ALWAYS Juxtaposed with "Science" (Empirical) if it wasn't NON-Empirical (Belief without Evidence)??  Is it comparing Like with Like??   

 

 

 

Quote

 

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:

faith, belief, worship, creed; More

• a particular system of faith and worship.

  plural noun: religions

 

 

Faith: "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." -- American Heritage Dictionary, 1991, p. 486

SEE it?

 

Quote

Christians don't have a personal relationship with God????

Yes, we do.

 

Quote

New concept??? 

Yes, "NEW" as in... You said:

Premise: "Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions because it says people will have a personal "relationship" with God."

Conclusion: "I find that personally [my opinion] to be one of the grand failures of Christianity [divine hiddenness]."

This is Non-Sequitur Fallacy because your "[divine hiddenness] " wasn't a part of your premise.  Making it "NEW" to your Original Claim (Premise).

 

Quote

If you think it's  a new concept then you're pretty ill equipped to be a part of the conversation.

Oh brother.

 

Quote

I'll explain this more for you as it appears you're struggling.

Oh Brother.  

 

Quote

Going back to just moments ago when I said how I'm not dogmatic about "Matter/Energy is ALL that there is" would be the first clue.

Yes it's the FIRST CLUE that you're Contradicting Yourself.

You understand that there are ONLY TWO CHOICES (Ontological Primitives) for How/Why we (Universe/Us) are here??  And that they are Mutually Exclusive??

1.  Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheist.  (Scientifically Falsified)

AND...

2.  Idealism.  (Theist)

You can't be a Supernatural Naturalist .  It violates the Law on Non-Contradiction and would Rival Married Bachelors.

 

regards

[Bonky]

8 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well then, you should have Explicitly SAID SO. 

I mistakenly assumed most would have figured this out w/o me drawing pictures.

9 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes, we do.

Then I'm not sure how I committed a fallacy accurately stating a claim of the Christian faith.  

10 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes it's the FIRST CLUE that you're Contradicting Yourself.

You understand that there are ONLY TWO CHOICES (Ontological Primitives) for How/Why we (Universe/Us) are here??  And that they are Mutually Exclusive??

1.  Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheist.  (Scientifically Falsified)

AND...

2.  Idealism.  (Theist)

You can't be a Supernatural Naturalist .  It violates the Law on Non-Contradiction and would Rival Married Bachelors.

Ok, but given the fact that I don't know which case it is, I'm not dogmatic about naturalism although it is my starting point and an assumption given what I know.  Some people have humility in their beliefs.  

[Enoch2021]

6 minutes ago, Bonky said:

I mistakenly assumed most would have figured this out w/o me drawing pictures.

You mistakenly ASSUMED "What"??  Draw us a Picture...?

 

Quote

Then I'm not sure how I committed a fallacy accurately stating a claim of the Christian faith.

My Goodness.  Allow me to draw you a Picture, K?

You said: "Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions because it says people will have a personal "relationship" with God."

So the STEREOTYPE is this part: "Ironically Christianity will boast that it's different from other religions...".

1.  Looking at this Closer, it's also a Reification Fallacy:  Christianity doesn't "boast" or "says" because "Concepts" are Inanimate. 

2.  It's also Factually Incorrect because Christianity is NOT a Religion.

 

Quote

Ok, but given the fact that I don't know which case it is

So you're saying that you're not a Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (aka: atheist) ??

 

Quote

I'm not dogmatic about naturalism although it is my starting point and an assumption given what I know. 

So Philosophical Naturalism/Realism is your Starting Point and an Assumption (And is Scientifically Falsified) but you're NOT a Philosophical Naturalist/Realist (aka: atheist) ??  

You wanna run that by us again, please...?

 

Quote

Some people have humility in their beliefs.  

And yet others have some semblance of "COHERENCY" in theirs.

 

regards

[Bonky]

Find someone else to argue with Enoch, that's what you want...not discussion.  

[missmuffet]

The overwhelming evidence that life cannot come from non-life is a powerful indication that naturalism is not a realistic worldview. Life either had a natural origin (abiogenesis) or a supernatural origin (intelligent design). The scientific impossibility of abiogenesis is an argument for, at least, a supernatural originator. The only way to create even the most basic building blocks of life is in non-natural, highly designed, and tightly controlled conditions. That, by itself, makes it reasonable to presume that life cannot begin without intelligent intervention.
 

[MorningGlory]

3 hours ago, Bonky said:

Find someone else to argue with Enoch, that's what you want...not discussion.  

The only thing I came away with, after reading this thread through, was snide, condescending contempt.  It's best not to feed the sharks, Bonky.  Ideally, we all should be able to learn something from discussion boards....but who said life is ideal?

[Bonky]

2 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

The only thing I came away with, after reading this thread through, was snide, condescending contempt.  It's best not to feed the sharks, Bonky.  Ideally, we all should be able to learn something from discussion boards....but who said life is ideal?

I'm sure Enoch is a good person, but he appears to be defending a faith anchored by a person he seems to have ignored [considering how he deals with people].