“There is no evidence for Santa Claus”.
Do you agree or disagree?
Instead of answering, you should ask me this question.
“Who or what is Santa Claus?”
Unless I tell you what I mean by ‘Santa’, you have no idea what will serve as evidence.
If Santa rides in a flying sleigh and climbs down your chimney on Christmas…
…there is no evidence for that.
If Santa is a dude in a red suit handing candy canes to people at the mall…
…there is lots of evidence for that.
When you say there is no evidence for God, I need to ask this question:
“Who or what is God?”
I tried to get some heathens to answer this question.
ME: You have to define what God is like so you can determine what evidence supports your definition. You said there is no evidence for God. So what evidence are you expecting to find?
Spartan: Depends on the God. Define one for me.
ME: Again, you made the claim that there is no evidence for God. So you must have defined God in order to say that. What evidence are you expecting to find?
Spartan: Well, I defer to every God that can be found in a Google search or Wikipedia.
ME: You first need to explain what you mean by “God”. We need to have at least a basic agreement on the what we think God is before we can evaluate evidence.
What characteristics would a being need to possess in order for you to call that being, “God”?
NAN: Very good question, JB. How would you answer it?
And around and around and around…
- explain my concept of God
- offer evidence for God’s existence
What I Mean When I Say "God"
What name is appropriate for the being responsible for the existence of reality? How can I refer to that which brought the universe into being? Am I going to call it, “Melvin”? That seems inadequate.
IThe next few blog posts will be evidences for this “God” I described above.
The titles for the posts are as follows:
92 Responses
Ad hominem is what’s left when one’s arguments have failed. In this series of posts I’ve been told I have bad thought processes, that I’m dishonest, fragile, etc. None of these are to any point except denigration, which proves nothing.
Your god teaches humility, right? Being non-judgemental, right?
Hmmmm…
Okay.
There’s a disturbance in the force! One thing doesn’t seem like the other!
Now, regarding your evidences. I’ve read them. I’d like to ask what, exactly, is the link that evidences god? Nothing you wrote is evidence. Speculation? Regurgitation of indoctrination? Delusion? Mythological?
Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.
Objectively, do you have evidence?
Do you believe Big Foot exists?
I believe a large animal, seemingly bipedal, has been seen. Hair/fur samples from areas this animal has been sighted have not supported an unknown bipedal animal. Until objective e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e supports the existence, I hold “belief” in abeyance.
The same goes for god. Like you, others have offered “evidence” which, objectively and as in the case of “Bigfoot”, does not support his/her/it’s existence.
My belief is held in abeyance.
Got proof to convince me?
I believe a large, seemingly bipedal animal has been reported. Hair/fur samples collected in some areas of sightings have not revealed a new animal. Are there any objectively reliable evidences of “bigfoot”? None, of which I am aware. So, I hold belief in abeyance.
The same for god. No objectively reliable evidence exists. I hold in abeyance my belief in a god.
Got proof better than what you’ve presented on this site? Anything that links undeniably to some god?
“I believe a large, seemingly bipedal animal has been reported…Are there any objectively reliable evidences of “bigfoot”? None, of which I am aware.”
I noticed that you first defined what you meant by “bigfoot” before discussing the evidence for its existence. Why did you do that?
Because that was what was reported. A large bipedal animal. At what point in time the name “bigfoot” was applied, I can’t say. Being a mythological creature, the preconceived notion existed (like “god”). It’s understandable the term was used before real evidence could determine just what it was or if it was nothing more than human imagination.
All of which are reasons to hold in abeyance any belief.
I keep asking, got objective proof of god?
Would you say we must both agree on what “bigfoot” is before we talk about whether or not it exists?
Yes! Good job defining Big Foot! You’re starting to understand, I think!
I was going to answer the same question about Big Foot myself: if you mean a hairy, upright-walking creature that has been reported in various woods, I don’t think there’s enough evidence. But if you mean “a woman who gave birth to me who also happens to have large feet,” I would say, “yes.” I’ve met her. And lots of other Big Foots including myself. 🙂
We MUST define what we mean before we can accept or reject evidence for it.
Sometimes mothers and hairy, upright-walking creatures are one in the same.
For my part, I wasn’t referring to either definition. I do believe bigfoot exists and I have loads of objective evidence to support that claim. Do you believe me?
I am not getting notifications when you reply to me…
And–yes–I believe that you have loads of evidence bigfoot exists, if you’re talking about videos which prove that someone in costume, calling himself “bigfoot,” has been traipsing around in the woods. Am I right?
No!!!
You’re incorrect!!!
Defining Bigfoot is important.
I did define him! I said “if you’re talking about…someone in costume [who calls] himself bigfoot.”
(And I’m still not getting notifications, for some reason.)
I wholeheartedly disagree! You have it backwards!
Here’s what should have happened, in my opinion:
1) An observation is made which
2) raises a question which
3) is investigated further to
4) create an hypothesis which
5) is objectively tested that
a) refines the hypothesis, cycling back to step 5, or
b) provides a solution
And then peer review takes place to minimize bias.
You’re starting with a definition prior to knowing just what you have! You should, rather, follow the evidence and then give it a name, later. After peer review succeeds and your solution turns into a scientific theory (aka scientific fact).
Would you say that we must both agree about the observation being made in step 1) before we can move on to step 2)?
Certainly not! Why should we?
(It seems to take a couple tries to post today!)
Certainly not! Why would you think there is such a need? Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin independently arrived at the basis for the theory of evolution, independently and nearly the same time! Wallace graciously deferred to Darwin for publication. In fact, multiple observers who bring their own skills to the question are probably better than a single observer. Having multiple observers, observing differences, can bring more to the question!
Have you no experience with the scientific method?
Do you have objective evidence of god?
I have objective evidence that bigfoot exists.
And…??
That’s it.
Can we agree that bigfoot exists based on my objective evidence?
Of course not. Share your evidence. While you’re at it, share your objective evidence of god.
1) an observation is made…
I’m waiting for you to make the same observation regarding bigfoot that I’ve made. That’s what Wallace and Darwin did. I don’t want to go backwards through the scientific method!
John, I get that you’re a comedian but this circular road is going nowhere.
I never claimed evidence for bigfoot or anything like it. YOU said you had objective evidence. Provide it or shut up
The same goes for god.
The circular road is frustrating to be sure. What you don’t understand is you’re the one who paved it.
If it’s not important that we agree about the definition of bigfoot then LITERALLY anything serves as evidence for its existence. You can’t evaluate my evidence for bigfoot until after I tell you what I think bigfoot is.
This isn’t controversial. It’s common sense. The evidence that you brought against the LDS church was a refutation of DEFINED points of doctrine. The church DEFINED historical events and you demonstrated them to be false.
Agreement on definitions or observations must always precede discussion of the evidence.
John, you seem like a nice guy. Intelligent. But you argue for the sake of arguing rather than to arrive at a point.
If you have objective evidence of god (hell, or even bigfoot) I’ll continue. If not, ciao, babe! Best wishes in your comedy.
AAtheist. Clever yet purile mockery.
Okay, I thought meaningful conversation could be had between us. I was wrong.
Goodbye, John.
I’ve been reading this conversation with interest, but it still frustrates me. How can a man who admits he isn’t a good thinker STILL be too full of pride to recognize when he has been beaten?
I’m not going to take the time to explain why the “non-belief” definition of Atheism is stupid. I’m not going to bother telling you that you must have a definition for God before you can be sure that you haven’t already seen evidence for Him. Instead, I’ll just reiterate, you have ALREADY STATED THAT YOUR ABILITY TO REASON IS BAD, and yet you still trust your ability to understand what Atheist websites are telling you and to judge it as sensible?
Dude, you’re in a bad spot. Beg the Creator to give you wisdom, because without that, you will never have another “meaningful conversation” ever again.
His take down of Mormon theology is great! Seriously, it’s well reasoned and articulate. It was written just a few years ago. I know atheism makes people stupid but I underestimated how long it takes to work.
Critical thinking requires honesty, Bruce. Dismissing my comment as “puerile mockery” is puerile. Leaving the conversation because it’s not going as you planned is cowardly. How do you expect to have “meaningful conversation” if I’m not allowed to dissent? Is this the first time you’ve ever had to explain your position?
You leaped from the fundamentalist LDS frying pan into the fundamentalist atheist fire. I’m disappointed. I thought you were made of stouter stuff.
Alright. One more shot.
I just finished a 70+ mile drive home so it has taken a bit of time to come back to this.
Here we go.
You expect Atheists to define god. Ludicrous. That is a setup for failure for sure. Why?
The human brain is a magnificent pattern recognition engine. If I define what I am looking for rather than observing objectively for evidence then I will probably see what I expect to see! It’s contrary to the scientific method. It’s a preconceived conclusion without proper foundation.
So, no atheist will define god. Instead, he/she will look for the evidence, whatever it might be. But, whatever it might be has to be objectively evaluated. Not just by the atheist but by others, also objectively. That’s all part of the scientific method.
Because the atheist is not making extraordinary claims, unbelief being a baseline, any evidence provided by a believer would be welcome, the only caveat being the prior paragraph regarding objectivity and repeatability.
Now, mrsmcmommy seemed to think I claimed I have bad thinking skills. That’s actually a poor interpretation of what I said. My ability to think is fine. I’m just formally untrained in and new to critical thought. I’ve been indoctrinated. Common sense has always been a skill I’ve had. Essentially, I have no problems thinking! What lacks is firnal training in logical fallacies and other more formal topics in logic. Being a professional “geek” might be an indication I am, at least, familiar with a form of logic, computer logic.
All that said, may we continue the conversation or will you continue to stoop into the cesspool of ad hominem?
“If I define what I am looking for rather than observing objectively for evidence then I will probably see what I expect to see! It’s contrary to the scientific method. It’s a preconceived conclusion without proper foundation.”
Bingo! When you declare up front that there is no evidence for God, then you probably won’t find any.
“So, no atheist will define god. Instead, he/she will look for the evidence, whatever it might be…”
I don’t think you can evaluate evidence without first defining the object to which the evidence points. Answering these two questions should demonstrate whether or not I’m correct.
Do you believe Big Foot exists?
Do you believe Gremlins exist?
Utter nonsense!
We (atheists) look for evidence. Being objective is the very definition of NO PRECONCEPTIONS, NO BIASES. But, being human, we all have preconceptions and biases. That’s where peer review comes into play, to minimize the effects of preconceptions and biases.
Objectivity. It’s the key.
It allows us to look around us in wonder. It allows us to take evidence of things unknown and research them. Test them.
For example, a recent study was performed at the University of Utah using fMRI technology to evaluate the brains of people during a “spiritual” experience i.e. prayer, meditation, scripture reading, etc.
Interestingly enough, the subjects were Mormon. Well, that’s most of the population surrounding the U of U!
The parts of the brain active most during these experiences were revealing. I won’t spoil the surprise. Look it up for yourselves.
And enjoy your god addiction! Doh! I may have spoiled it anyway!
In the end, discarding my preconceived notions and trying my best to overcome my biases will serve me better if or when god actually leaves behind evidence.
Enjoy your day.
I am through here. Too much nonsense…
Wait…
UNLESS any one of you reading ACTUALLY has that evidence and just isn’t sharing? Remember, the rules of evidence apply (these are commonly accepted rules and are part of the scientific method, objectivity being primary and key).
All arguments would cease with that evidence. Go ahead. Lay it on me! Stop the arguments!
You’re a pretty fragile person, Bruce. You’ll need to toughen up before asking for “meaningful conversations” around here. You can’t handle those conversations.
Meaningful conversations are risky. They come with the threat of being wrong. I’ve never had a meaningful conversation that didn’t change me somehow. Change often bruises my ego. That’s the price of wisdom.
You want “affirming conversations”. You want me to assure you that you’re very smart and your atheist ramblings are a strong refutation of my theism. You want to be applauded lacking belief, offering no evidence, and making no claims. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t happen here. I recommend any atheist blog to scratch that itch.
(FWIW: I provided multiple evidences for God’s existence. A meaningful conversation would require discussing that evidence, not merely demanding more.)
Your comment seems to be tending toward ad hominem. At the very least, it’s talking down to me. Ad hominem might be the next step. I hope we can avoid that unpleasantness.
No, I think clearly enough. The very definition of atheist is one who claims no evidence for a god. Atheists do not claim there is no god. So, to define something for which there is no evidence is a fool’s errand, is it not? Upon what would an atheist base a definition, without evidence?
See? That’s fairly clear.
How do you know your definition of atheism is correct?
OMG! Really?
“Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.” – Wikipedia
The reason for the absence of bekief is the absence of evidence.
Look, I am atheist. I didn’t choose to be so on a whim. I had to understand what I was choosing. The very first thing I did was find the definition!!
From the American Atheists website, “Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”
Will two sources suffice?
I am an AAtheist. This is a lack of belief in atheists. It is not an affirmation of belief that there are no atheists nor does it answer any question about what I believe. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that you are an atheist. AAtheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: AAtheism is not a disbelief in atheists or a denial of atheists; it is a lack of belief in atheists.
Is that clear?
I am not a scientist or physicist. I am a 64 year old former Mormon (I was excommunicated for apostasy March 30th, 2016) who is now atheist.
John invited me to comment, so I shall. Take it for what it’s worth from someone untrained but very inquisitive. And old enough to have observed some things.
But I am very new to critical thought. Religious indoctrination had been shown, via cognitive and neurological lab testing, to impair logical thinking. Google is your friend in researching this. 😁
Is every indoctrinated person logically impaired? No. That’s not what I said or indicated. But I do suggest my own thought patterns have been heavily influenced by Mormon indoctrination over my 60+ years! Might yours, as well??
So, on with my perspective.
The universe began with the sudden expansion of a singularity. What started that?
I don’t know. There is no evidence, so far, to be able to tell if no evidence we yet understand. What I do understand is that the physics at that moment of ignition of the singularity’s expansion was not the same physics as afterward. Maybe not the same for millions of years, even hundreds of millions of years.
So, science does not provide evidence of any outside influences but doesn’t know if there still could be. It just doesn’t know. It doesn’t pretend to know.
Yet.
What is it that we humans perceive as proof or evidence of this outside influence, if there is one? I suggest perception might be better named indoctrination, and it has been passed down from eras long past. Back when man feared the unknown, but still had to explain it!
As a person of the atheist persuasion (newly minted), I ask the believer for their proof or evidence of this outside influence, along with an explanation for why it is evidence or proof.
Simple, right?
In my comment, “There is no evidence, so far, to be able to tell if no evidence we yet understand.” should read, “There is no evidence, so far, to be able to tell or no evidence we yet understand.”
I immensely dislike “autostupid”!
You still need to describe what it is that there is “no evidence” for. Vagueness is a cornerstone of atheist arguments. I put my definition of God on the table. You need to do likewise.
No, I do not. My *claim*, however, is that there is no evidence of an outside influence from something that needs to be defined. How am I to define what has no evidence of existence?
You may wish to rail against this stance but that would be your choice. To claim something does not exist is impossible. Logicians understand and accept that. It’s those, like you, who claim something extraordinary or supernatural who bear the burden of proof! I simply claim the “natural”, coupled with an expectation of further understanding later.
“There is no evidence of an outside influence from something that needs to be defined.”
You admitted that you were new to critical thinking. Are you interested in learning how to be a good critical thinker or are you content to pretend your commentary is reasonable? Your choice.
Basically you evidence for “god” are
1) We want life to have meaning
2) The explanation of cow
3) People don’t sue monkeys and rocks
4) Because people talked about god in your imaginary planet, therefore god exist and your imaginary hermit
5) I didn’t get your Jello story ( what do you mean by coming to life )
Non-living stuff doesn’t come to life.
Take a look at viruses that are essentially “non-living stuff”, but on certain circumstances the show properties of life, like reproduction, ability to adapt to their environment take a look at human immunodeficiency virus whose adaptation and mutation has made it difficult to combat it. Look at mamavirus a virus that was found to be infected by Sputnik virophage — a satellite virus ( talk about virus getting sick )
Atheists are fragile intellectuals.
When they don’t get to make the rules, they run away.
They probably get bored talking to dogmatic apologists; then they head off to another party, where the conversation’s a little more stimulating.
Apparently you haven’t had a conversation with the Spartan.
Call it ridiculous, call it implausible, call it poppycock. There are two propositions on the table, are there not?
No. There is one proposition.
The fact that you can’t come up with another is strong evidence for God.
Your inability to count is not strong evidence for god, but it is strong evidence that you’re wiling to literally lie about the numbers 1 and 2 if it means defending your idea of god.
Also, I can’t debate nor reason with someone that just lies. Later.
TSA
Your inability to count is strong evidence for your devout adherence to bias.
I haven’t lied.
You have.
Later.
Spartan,
I know it can be difficult to discuss with JB because his answers are so short and clear that it’s annoying. But let me see if I can expand on what he’s saying a little bit. (I’ve been told before that using lots of words sounds nicer, so I’ll try to do that. 🙂 Please bear with me.)
It seems to the outside observer that what you call “evolution” is definitionally the same thing that others have called “God” for centuries. It seems you’ve renamed God because you like the idea of “evolution” better than what you think is the opposite: something you called “poof.”
The outside observer, however, doesn’t understand the difference between “evolution” and “God” (i.e. “poof”). Even a “poof” that takes millions of years is still a “poof” that can’t be explained.
In other words, when children ask “where do chickens come from?” we can say “eggs ” and be partially right. But not totally. We can see the problem when they ask, “Well then where do eggs come from?” and we have to say, “chickens.” It’s a circle that can’t go on forever. So–neither chickens nor eggs are complete explanations for chickens and eggs. They don’t explain themselves.
Unfortunately, evolution doesn’t explain itself, either. It kicks the cycle back a few more millenia, but it doesn’t solve the problem. That is, unless you define Evolution as an intelligent, life-giving force which is responsible for all the stuff in the world that can’t explain itself.
According to John, you don’t like defining things. But I have to ask anyway: is what I wrote above what you believe evolution is/does?
In that case, I think your explanation for chickens is a great one! “Evolution” is a great option! In fact, it’s the ONLY option and makes perfect sense.
I simply prefer to call it “God.”
He gone.
Back to his safe space where nobody asks questions or disagrees with him. God speed, little Spartan!
Is he being notified of my comments? Or will he have to check here manually to see if someone replied?
(Just trying to give him some slack…)
I have no idea. He’s already written a rebuttal on his blog which asserts I can’t count. It’s heady stuff.
He’s a fundamentalist to the core. Doesn’t engage with the ideas, just calls me a charlatan and pretends it’s beneath his dignity to talk to me.
I haven’t read any of your original conversations, and I’m not going to start reading his blog now.
But I’m honestly not sure he understands what you’re trying to say. Theology actually IS heady stuff. It would be easy for someone who already feels a bit insecure to think you’re just messing with them, like an ornery uncle who tells you he will give you a ten dollar bill if you can name the President who’s on it… I know from experience a person could have his/her guard up for a long time when he/she isn’t sure who to trust.
He doesn’t understand anything I’m trying to say. If you read his blog, you’ll realize he doesn’t understand what HE’S trying to say. He’s a dimwit. That’s not a problem except that he thinks he’s brilliant.
You’re correct that he thinks I’m “messing with him”. That’s ultimately why they block me. I ask a question. They accuse me of trolling. Educating The Spartan is not my goal. He’s just a useful prop.
Fair enough. 🙂
Just remember some of the people reading may need you to go a little slower, too.
Not because they’re dimwits; but because this is heady stuff.
I think this series has been popular because your aim has been simplification. I agree with the person who suggested it would make a good children’s book.
Think of the children. 🙂
Evolution has not been what people have called “god” for centuries. For one thing god is an intelligent being and evolution is not a living thing.
But in this article, what John calls god is simply evolution
Sure what we observe is chicken comes from eggs and eggs came from chicken. But like you pointed out that circle can’t go on forever, and sure it does not go on forever
For one chickens evolved from a group of dinosaurs called the theropods ( also where Tyrannosaurus rex are a descendants off ). Chickens are the closest living relatives of T. rex
You could read more about the evolutionary history of chickens
This can be a start
http://blogs.lt.vt.edu/chickens/2013/05/01/evolutionary-history-of-the-chicken-pigeon-and-other-birds/
I don’t understand what you just wrote here
How does god accounts for he or she or its own existence and the natural world cannot
Evolution doesn’t explain itself.
No matter how far back you take your explanations, eventually you must run into “something” which just IS, all by itself. There must be “something” that needs no explanation.
Whatever that “something” is–we call God.
(And I’m familiar with the evolutionary theory about chickens and theropods, thanks. You still haven’t asked “And where did THAT come from” enough times, though… keep going.)
If like you said you are familiar with evolutionary theory then you should know the origin of theropods
And can you show me were evolution doesn’t explain itself
If a god exist. He or she or it needs an explanation for its own existence. If you excuse god from having to need an explanation, the natural word can also be excused from having to need an explanation. You have to empirically show that god is the exception
Can you show me empirically that there is “something” that needs no explanation.
Even if there is I can just easily say the universe just is or the multiverse just is or the singular undifferentiated quantum state does not need an explanation. These 3 things are hardly supernatural beings or dieties or intelligent beings . But I wouldn’t put myself in the intellectual laziness you are asking everyone to
Can you tell me why the big bang is not the something that does not require an explanation.
Last I checked evolution or the big bang or the universe is not what christianity defines god as. Why isn’t pantheism correct when the say ( the universe is god and by your definition of god, the universe does not need an explanation )
How does this “unexplained” something possess the attribute of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, all loving etc
The existence if birds, chicken and life in generally can be traced back to the big bang
You are just trying to do play word games
God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
or
God: a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
How did you arrive that what is responsible for all the stuff in the world is an intelligent being
For one, the big bang is responsible for all the stuff in the world
you first defined god as an intelligent, life-giving force which is responsible for all the stuff in the world that can’t explain itself.
and now you are saying
god is “something” that needs no explanation.
Stick to one definition
Based on your second definition.
1) god is “something” that needs no explanation
2) Nothing needs no explanation
3) Therefore, god is nothing
or
1) god is “something” that needs no explanation
2) Nonexistence needs no explanation
3) Therefore, god is nonexistence
or
1) What does not exist needs no explanation
2) god is “something” that needs no explanation
3) Therefore, god is what does not exist
or
1) things that exist needs an explanation for their existence
2) god is “something” that needs no explanation
3) Therefore, god is “something” that does not exist
All these I derived from your logic on god
Jonathan–my understanding of evolution is that it asks “what came before THAT?” over and over and over, until it arrives at the Big Bang. But the process of evolution couldn’t be responsible for itself, because (as you pointed out) it’s not intelligent. Something that isn’t intelligent can’t bring forth intelligence.
When you talk about theropods, the only thing you’ve done is change the problem from “Chicken-and-egg” into “therapod-and-egg.” That’s why I said you’ve kicked the cycle back a few more millenia. But you haven’t answered the question any better…
As I stated “Something” must be responsible to get the Universe started, and it must not require an explanation for Itself. If you think the Something/god is “natural” (which I assume means “physical”) that’s a fine hypothesis. But I don’t think an unintelligent, non-living, natural/physical “something/god” makes sense.
If you think the Someething/god might be simple and mindless evolution (without the traditional understanding of God behind it), then could you explain how you think Intelligence can come from unintelligence, or how life can come from something not alive itself?
That’s the part of the theory I don’t understand. Can you walk me through that, please? (Feel free to use as many words as you want. Lord knows I’ve used quite a few!) 🙂
The something is called the big bang
Like I said, god in religion require explanation for it existence.
Like I said earlier, the only things that don’t require explanation for their existence are things that don’t exist. If like you are implying that this statement is not correct, then we need to empirically observe something that breaks this rule
I never said therapod came from egg like the case of chicken and egg. Therapod evolved from other pre existing life form. I think your main question is about the origin of life
This is what I don’t understand. What do you mean for evolution to be responsible for itself
What I am not getting is what you mean by the process of evolution not being responsible for the process of evolution
I don’t understand this statement
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
By the definition of intelligence. Evolution is not intelligent but based on the evidence we have intelligence came from evolution. Intelligent life came from evolution of non intelligent life
So I don’t see how this your statement is valid
There is the field of Abiogenesis. But the haven’t solved the problem completely, for now we it have been shown that the building blocks of life could have arisen from inorganic & organic materials found in the early universe . But since we haven’t found an answer doesn’t mean there isn’t one
There is another case of the possibility of life-like cells made of metal ( if this comes out successful it could change a lot about how science define life )
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20906-life-like-cells-are-made-of-metal/
In one of my comments, I cited viruses
viruses that are essentially “non-living stuff”, but on certain circumstances the show properties of life, like reproduction, ability to adapt to their environment take a look at human immunodeficiency virus whose adaptation and mutation has made it difficult to combat it. Look at mamavirus a virus that was found to be infected by Sputnik virophage — a satellite virus ( talk about virus getting sick )
Biological life has the properties or capabilities of organization, metabolism, homeostasis, growth, reproduction, response and evolution
First “life” could very possibly lacked many important properties, such as homeostasis and response, and would be a non-living thing like viruses. Though unlike viruses, first life very possibly had reproduction and metabolism
In 2014 a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of RNA ( adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil ) by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions.
But one of the components of dna, is thymine in combination with the components of RNA ( minus uracil )
In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space
A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents.
Now we haven’t gotten there but science is getting more an more information. That I assume ( yes I am making an assumption/prediction ) that in a couple of years just as we did not know for many years the cause of lightning and many people assumed the cause was a god, we would know how life came about just as people assume it to be a god
It makes more sense than a supernatural being
For one we have evidence that the natural exist
Now you are saying that the natural world requires the supernatural to exist
Then what does the supernatural require to exist
If you excuse the supernatural as nor requiring any explanation or any thing to exist then the natural can also be easily excused as not requiring any explanation or thing to exist
A summary of what I just wrote here ( please forgive me if this comment did not flow well , i wrote this comment half sleeping )
Just like you hinted at we don’t know everything about the natural world especially on the origin of life. But this our lack of understanding is just an evidence of lack of understanding and it is in no way an evidence for a supernatural origin. I don’t want to make the mistake that people of times past did when science had not found out the reason for natural occurrence like lightning, earthquake, volcano ( this one is even named after the roman god vulcan ), the seasons, flooding, sun rise and set etc, they saw this lack of knowledge to imply that a supernatural force was behind it, but now we know that to not be the case. I don’t want to make that mistake with the origin of life
Just to make sure we’re on the same page, what I’m hearing is that you think The Big Bang is the ultimate explanation which needs no explanation itself.
(That’s what I would call God, by the way. But we can just call it the Something, if you want. The Ultimate Something from which everything else comes…)
In other words, the possibility on the table is that the Big Bang is the life-giving force responsible for EVERYTHING. It’s where we can finally stop asking “what came before that,” because the Big Bang is the first domino. It’s the ground floor. To ask what came before wouldn’t make sense because, by definition of The Thing Which Needs No Explanation, there can’t be anything before it…
Is that right?
Sorry this is coming a bit late
I am saying that the big bang could be it. I just don’t know,
What I’m saying is that they is no reason why the “ultimate explanation” need to be an intelligent or supernatural being or a being with the characteristics of the christian god.
They is no reason why the answer is not in nature
I’m glad I clarified. 🙂
I am NOT glad that I just typed a lengthy response and then accidentally deleted it. :/
Take two!
I understand your reluctance to say, for example, “The Big Bang IS the First Domino.” And I appreciate your wording, “The Big Bang COULD be the First Domino” much better…
I’m not trying to trap you when I encourage you to talk about the Ground Floor–which is why I think it’s safer for BOTH of us to call it “The Something” rather than putting a specific name on it right away. Some people call it the “First Cause” some call it the “First Mover.” We could call it “The Life Force” or “The Creator” or even just “I AM.” 🙂 As long as we both understand what we’re trying to get at. Obviously some of those names sound more like “a person” than others, and I know that makes some people uncomfortable…especially when their preferred understanding of The Life Force is that its mindless, swirling chemicals, with no intelligence. I really don’t care what we call The Ultimate Something, as long as we’re on the same page.
I like to picture The Something as a blank circle, which symbolizes the thing which explains everything and needs no explanation for itself. And then, as we discuss further, we can write anything inside that circle we would like to theorize.
Maybe we want to propose that The Ultimate Something is our own parents/grandparents. (Obviously, neither of us thinks that is the case. But my 5-year-old made that guess the other day, and I thought it was cute.) Or maybe The Something is the Big Bang. Or maybe it’s a being traditionally called God–which could further be defined either as a bearded old man in the sky, or as the ancient philosophers understood it, God is a mind without a body, which has always existed, outside of time and space. Thomas Aquinas called it “The First Mover.” Regardless of what you or I puts inside that circle as a candidate for the possible Life Force, neither of us may ask “What Came Before it?” at that point. By definition, anything inside that circle explains itself and cannot be traced back any further.
Once we move to Step #2, both of us would need to define our terms by explaining WHAT DO WE MEAN by “Big Bang” or “God.” And, indeed, Spartan would be correct that there are at least TWO options on the table at that stage of the discussion. Actually, when you invite a 5-year-old to participate, there are literally millions of possibilities on the table, as candidates for The Something. 🙂 But, John Branyan is correct that we are discussing only ONE “Something.” By definition, we’re trying to give a name to the ONE “Whatever” which cannot be traced any further back than itself.
So, does all of that make sense?
I want to make sure I’m clear what is meant by “The Something” before I move on? (Sorry if this is less clear than the response I tried to send a few minutes ago… I’m still annoyed with myself for deleting it.)
I agree, that we are both referring to one thing. At the both of us know that what “god” means in this discussion is not the exact meaning it has in most religions especially christianity.
But, there is a good chance that someone reading this post, wouldn’t get that.
That is where I agree with Spartan when he said we have two options.
I understand what you are saying
I agree with what you are saying, there has to be “The Something”
I think, the main issue is what is the nature of “The Something”
I’m not sure if either of us can say what others mean by “God.” But I can tell you my understanding has been heavily influence by very, very, very early Christian philosophers. I think I can agree that my definition (and perhaps John’s) doesn’t look much like what you’ll learn about in many MODERN CHURCH BUILDINGS. But I would argue that many people who call themselves Christians don’t think about what they mean by “god” at all. I’m afraid it’s not fair to judge the entire Christian religion based on what shallow, self-promoting “pastors” are saying while trying to sell you their t-shirts and the rest of their church brand.
Maybe you and I could both go on and on about what’s wrong with modern church groups. 🙂
But, I’m glad we’re understanding each other about “the Something” and I agree that our main disagreement is THE NATURE OF “The Something.”
As a reminder, John wrote:
I admit that his example of the chicken-and-egg could be a little confusing. But I’m still not sure how the Big Bang could be The Something that doesn’t need an explanation. Most Theists (including myself) don’t understand how something which had a beginning, like the Universe, could have BEGUN ITSELF. In my opinion, The Something would have to be Something WITHOUT a beginning… Also, I can’t accept the idea that Intelligence arises from something Unintelligent, even over millions of years. Information, like the codes contained in our DNA, always requires a Coder, or an Intelligence to write that code intentionally.
We kind of hint at the strange, intentional way nature behaves when we talk about “Natural Selection.” In all other areas, something unintelligent can’t SELECT or make a choice. Only minds choose. (Or minds create machines which are programmed to choose.)
John, I don’t care if you believe it or not, or if evolution is even true or not at this point. I have presented two possible explanations for chickens. One is god. The second is evolution. Can you agree I literally typed two things?
Spartan, you have presented one possible explanation and one ridiculous statement. Evolution isn’t an explanation. Sorry if you don’t believe it.
Completely. But we weren’t talking about the origins of life, we were talking about chickens.
So, given two possible explanations for chickens, poofed or evolved, we indeed have two options, of which if one is correct, the other can not be correct. Still following?
Restating your faulty “two options” doesn’t magically make it valid.
Evolution is NOT an explanation for life OR chickens. Still following?
Yes, John. I said that. I not only said that, I offered two possible, contradictory and incompatible possibilities. One is GOD. The other is evolution. Are you following me so far?
Yes, Spartan, I’m following you. I explained that evolution doesn’t account for the origins of life. Are you following me?
Are you saying that chickens BOTH evolved over millions of years AND poofed into existence as is?
No.
I’m saying they can’t exist without an explanation.
Neither chickens nor eggs are self-explanatory.
John, you liar. I claimed that evolution provides an account for chickens. You asked me to provide an account for chickens without god, and I did so.
So god, and evolution. One is wrong for sure, both could be wrong. How do we find out? Evidence.
And I just spent the last hour reading most of your “evidences” that contain no evidence whatsoever.
I’d say good try, but actually it was a pretty poor attempt. Then again, you said you would provide evidence for something for which there is no evidence. So…… you have that going against you.
“So god, and evolution. One is wrong for sure…”
That is called a statement of certainty.
I’m not the liar.
Oh, that’s easy. Because you’re claiming you are correct without any evidence at all. I’m claiming cautious interest but uncertainty with some evidence.
I’m being uncertain. You’re being unjustifiably certain.
Actually, I haven’t claimed anything with certainty.
You, on the other hand, have stated with certainty that evolution explains chickens. There is no evidence that chickens evolved from reptiles.
Short answer, John? I don’t know.
Longer answer, evolution explains how chickens as a species came into being from earlier reptiles. But if you’re asking about abiogenesis, there are some very interesting results that scientists have done in the lab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
So between your god, any other gods, aliens, some other means, and abiogenesis, only one has any evidence. Is it the correct answer? I’m not sure. But it does account for your chicken.
Why is your uncertainty better than my uncertainty?
So, if I understand you correctly, your god is basically just an explanation for anything you can’t explain.
You’re therefore explaining something with another thing that has no explanation. We understand egg with reference to chicken, but you’re saying egg with reference to “mystery”. All you did was push the mystery one step back by including the chicken. But you didn’t actually explain anything.
I’d also like to note that this definition of “god” is so watered down, so un-precise, it could potentially be anything. Using your definition, god could be the god of Christianity, or any of the Hindu gods, the Norse gods, Greek gods, aliens, an all-powerful evil wizard, or nature doing nothing supernatural whatsoever.
Hell, I’ll show you Evolution, and it matches your definition of “god”. If you care to, I’d be happy to confirm your definition of god by doing just that.
“All you did was push the mystery one step back by including the chicken. But you didn’t actually explain anything.”
Wrong. I explained it with “God”.
How do you explain it without God?
Yes, you explained it with “god”, but you haven’t defined your god other than the thing that explains other stuff. Explaining something with an unknown is not explaining something, it’s deferring.
You call yourself a Christian, I see, and yet you are avoiding defining “god” by any of the biblical attributes. You have deferred to an unknown, which as I already noted, is such a watered down definition that the Theory of Evolution fits your definition. And again, if the Theory of Evolution is your god, I’ll gladly concede.
I did define God.
You didn’t answer my question. How do you explain chickens and eggs without God? (Please remember the Theory of Evolution doesn’t address the origins of life.)
Oh, THIS is going to be GOOD!
How hard to people have to work to be that dense?
In all seriousness, the heathens (as you call them) are a big reason I believe in Total Depravity.
Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:14-20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:11). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3).
All of that describes the heathen to a T. Most notably there, though, is “he cannot understand spiritual things.”
An inability to understand spiritual things is the only thing that explains how heathens understand language, logic, Scripture, and reason completely differently than anyone else.
I used to believe it was willful ignorance but I don’t think that is the right answer, at least all the time.
I think there is a war going on between our natural selves and the part of ourselves that it made in God’s image. The natural self is depraved. The part that is from God (call it conscience) knows right and wrong. Religion teaches us to be guided by the God part. The natural part is always there yelling obscenities and throwing selfish tantrums. Surrendering to Jesus makes the God part louder. Over time, the God part becomes the only voice we trust. When we die, the angry, selfish natural part goes away. The God part goes to live with God.
The heathen, spend their lives amplifying the natural part. Over time, their depravity drowns out the God part of them. When they die, they have nothing that can live forever with God. So they live with their natural selves apart from their Creator. That’s called “hell”.
This was my favorite comment from Spartan…
“I can guess what may be evidence, but since I’ve never seen any, I don’t know what the evidence could be.”
He doesn’t know what evidence is, but yet he’s sure there is no evidence of God. Nothing like a totally incoherent statement. LOL!
Look forward to what you have to say. As you alluded to here, evidence doesn’t explain a thing. Science doesn’t explain gravity or anything in the natural world, really. It can only tell us what it does.