Abiogenesis is impossible

[Bad Writer]

Show me a god that's not in conflict with science. Yahweh doesn't quite fit the bill; I prefer Loki myself.

[Sword of Christ]

Show me a god that's not in conflict with science. Yahweh doesn't quite fit the bill; I prefer Loki myself.

Pagan gods controlled aspects of the natural world so they would conflict with science quite a fair bit. Yahweh just created the natural world and all the physical processes science can study. Yahweh or YHWH means "he causes to be" or "he creates". So as you can see there isn't much of a conflict to had seeing as it addresses something science can't.

[Darkstar]

Pagan gods controlled aspects of the natural world so they would conflict with science quite a fair bit. Yahweh just created the natural world and all the physical processes science can study. Yahweh or YHWH means "he causes to be" or "he creates". So as you can see there isn't much of a conflict to had seeing as it addresses something science can't.

Someone once said "god does not act in mysterious ways; he acts in ways indistinguishable from his non-existence". That is what I am seeing here; a god who is explicitly untestable by science. There is literally no failure state for someone who ascribes to this worldview. Nothing that happens ever can be taken as evidence against god. Pray and your prayer is "answered"? God did it. Pray and it is "answered" ten years later? Gog did it. Pray and it is never "answered"? God didn't feel like answering it. Small child barely survives devastating cancer? Praise the lord, our child is saved! Small child doesn't survive devastating cancer? It must have been his time; he's in a better place now.

If by Yahweh you only mean "he creates", then you have deism, not Christianity. Deism has not been scientifically debunked (though can it be?), so at least you would be vaguely honest here. But the Bible is a whole other matter. Talk of a single couple populating the whole world and a wooden boat holding and feeding thousands of animals for several months on open water is patently ridiculous. Did you not hear about the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate? Can you watch that debate and honestly still claim that Christianity doesn't conflict with science? (And, in the event that your post is taken only at face value, you technically only said god didn't conflict, in which case I would again point you to deism.)

[Cyberman]

You believe there's a god, right? Do I believe you when you say there is? No, I don't.

If you don't have an alternative belief in Gods place you don't really have a reason to disagree with anyone.

Not at all. The middle position - no belief in [given claim] - really is the default one. If I assert that a person is guilty of something, or that I flipped a coin and it came up heads, you're not required to have an alternative belief in order not to accept that claim. We all know that it's a popular theist tactic to misrepresent what atheism actually is, but honestly this is such a basic thing to put right that it just comes across as comically desperate every time it comes up.

[Sword of Christ]

Someone once said "god does not act in mysterious ways; he acts in ways indistinguishable from his non-existence". That is what I am seeing here; a god who is explicitly untestable by science.

If you have a god that is testable and understandable to science that is the God of the Bible who is beyond all that. Of course science didn't exist when the Jews began to believe in this kind of God as opposed to the other pagan nature controlling gods who would be scientifically observable if they existed. This wasn't cunningly devised in response to modern science but an authentically ancient understanding.

There is literally no failure state for someone who ascribes to this worldview.

The theology is pretty much immune and impervious to anyone would want to prove or demonstrate it as wrong (and many people would like to or think they have) but it wasn't developed intentionally as reaction to atheism.

Nothing that happens ever can be taken as evidence against god.

That's right there is nothing we can know or find out that could ever be used as evidence against God, that's the beauty of it.

Pray and your prayer is "answered"? God did it.

He answers all prayers though of course you can't analysis and measure the answer in a laboratory. I suppose you can try to see if the healing/recovery rate is improved by prayer or not and that kind of thing but still not an easy thing to measure, even if there is some effect it will tend to be dismissed as psychological or a placebo effect. Though I think that is still somewhat interesting in itself, the mind/consciousness seems to have great deal of power and physical effect when applied a certain way, a power than can through prayer perhaps be drawn upon. Prayer has been around for many thousands had it done nothing at all I'm sure everyone would have noticed by now and stopped.

Pray and it is "answered" ten years later? Gog did it. Pray and it is never "answered"? God didn't feel like answering it. Small child barely survives devastating cancer? Praise the lord, our child is saved! Small child doesn't survive devastating cancer? It must have been his time; he's in a better place now.

While I'm sure it can help/aid survival there will be some kind of physical limit. There are some strange stories of Holy people (not always within the Christian faith) who are able to sustain/physically restore themselves on prayer when they really ought to be dead. There's an interesting and very large book I own that details some of these cases not that anything like this can definitely prove the existence of God it's just something strange and unexplained that sometimes apparently happens.

If by Yahweh you only mean "he creates", then you have deism, not Christianity.

It would only be Deism if God doesn't interact with humanity and doesn't reveal himself through revelation. But if he answers prayer in some way and the Bible is a revelation from God to humanity then that won't be Deism as he will be actively involved with us.

Deism has not been scientifically debunked (though can it be?), so at least you would be vaguely honest here.

Theism hasn't been debunked either, there are arguments against it but that isn't debunking that's a difference of opinion.

But the Bible is a whole other matter. Talk of a single couple populating the whole world and a wooden boat holding and feeding thousands of animals for several months on open water is patently ridiculous.

The historical event it was perhaps based on won't have been anything at all like that but you can read it as parable of the kind Jesus told. Flood myths in general have a universal and far retching history so there is something there that seems to resonate with the human psyche. Noah happens to be the Bibles flood myth but you'll find one in the Hindu Vedas and many other religions and cultures.

Did you not hear about the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate? Can you watch that debate and honestly still claim that Christianity doesn't conflict with science? (And, in the event that your post is taken only at face value, you technically only said god didn't conflict, in which case I would again point you to deism.)

Deism only applies to a God who doesn't interact or reveal himself to us but I would say there is a strong case to be made that God has if you take a look at human history. Belief and worship of something no matter how ill defined has always been present in all cultures all the way back through civilization and beyond.

---

Not at all. The middle position - no belief in [given claim] - really is the default one.

There isn't a middle position you can't be half a Jain for instance you would either be a Jain or not a Jain. Jains don't believe God either btw, it's one of those interesting religions.

If I assert that a person is guilty of something, or that I flipped a coin and it came up heads, you're not required to have an alternative belief in order not to accept that claim. We all know that it's a popular theist tactic to misrepresent what atheism actually is, but honestly this is such a basic thing to put right that it just comes across as comically desperate every time it comes up.

Western atheism is essentially this.





There are other alternative theism in the world that aren't like this but that's sum and total of it. Some Brain Cox here.





Not that there's anything wrong with science as a tool to understand how the universe works there's just a tendency to put that in place of God.

[pocaracas]

So the big boy likes science as a description of reality, huh?
I wonder what he thinks of psychology... And neurology...
Hmmm, would it seem difficult for all those beliefs throughout human history to be the manifestation of something within the human mind?... instead of your interpretation that it is a hint of something out of this world...
Does Occam's razor ring a bell?

[Sword of Christ]

So the big boy likes science as a description of reality, huh?
I wonder what he thinks of psychology... And neurology...
Hmmm, would it seem difficult for all those beliefs throughout human history to be the manifestation of something within the human mind?

They can be manifestations within the human mind from within the reality of God. Of course there wouldn't be much of a revelation from God if there weren't any minds to manifest it within. Note what Dumbledore says at the end of this scene.

... instead of your interpretation that it is a hint of something out of this world...

No within this world, God has immanence in his creation and this world is a part of that. The manifestations of this you see physically and experience internally.

Does Occam's razor ring a bell?

You have one God and one reality created by this one God so that's straightforward and simple, not more complicated than it needs to be.

[Cyberman]

Unfortunately, by invoking a god to account for this one reality you have not only multiplied the entities beyond necessity, you've also upset Thomas Aquinas:

"Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence."

When wielding parsimonious razors, amateurs are advised to wear gloves.

[Darkstar]

If you have a god that is testable and understandable to science that is the God of the Bible who is beyond all that. Of course science didn't exist when the Jews began to believe in this kind of God as opposed to the other pagan nature controlling gods who would be scientifically observable if they existed. This wasn't cunningly devised in response to modern science but an authentically ancient understanding.

So you're saying that they were smart enough to make their god untestable even back then? Also, it would be inaccurate to claim that science didn't exist back then. It obviously wasn't up to the level of modern science, but it did exist.

There is literally no failure state for someone who ascribes to this worldview.

The theology is pretty much immune and impervious to anyone would want to prove or demonstrate it as wrong (and many people would like to or think they have) but it wasn't developed intentionally as reaction to atheism.

But you admit it is unfalsifiable, then? The problem with unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they are indeed false, you will never know for sure.

Nothing that happens ever can be taken as evidence against god.

That's right there is nothing we can know or find out that could ever be used as evidence against God, that's the beauty of it.

Uh...that's a bad thing. If we posit an alternate universe where no gods exist, how would it differ from this one? Could you tell? How do you know we aren't actually living in it right now?

Pray and your prayer is "answered"? God did it.

He answers all prayers though of course you can't analysis and measure the answer in a laboratory. I suppose you can try to see if the healing/recovery rate is improved by prayer or not and that kind of thing but still not an easy thing to measure, even if there is some effect it will tend to be dismissed as psychological or a placebo effect.

Well, the studies have actually not showed any benefit, so there's no need to blame the placebo effect here.

Though I think that is still somewhat interesting in itself, the mind/consciousness seems to have great deal of power and physical effect when applied a certain way, a power than can through prayer perhaps be drawn upon.

I find it interesting that you would use this connection as evidence for your religion, rather than the opposite.

Prayer has been around for many thousands had it done nothing at all I'm sure everyone would have noticed by now and stopped.

Some did; they're called atheists (or agnostics, or even just apathetic theists). Do you think people should also have noticed that Allah is a false deity by now?

Pray and it is "answered" ten years later? Gog did it. Pray and it is never "answered"? God didn't feel like answering it. Small child barely survives devastating cancer? Praise the lord, our child is saved! Small child doesn't survive devastating cancer? It must have been his time; he's in a better place now.

While I'm sure it can help/aid survival there will be some kind of physical limit.

I believe the phrase you were looking for was "with God, anything is possible".

Matthew 17:20
New International Version (NIV)
20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

---

Mark 11:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

The latter quote is interesting in how close it comes to implying the placebo effect. I doubt that was the intention, but who knows?

It would only be Deism if God doesn't interact with humanity and doesn't reveal himself through revelation. But if he answers prayer in some way and the Bible is a revelation from God to humanity then that won't be Deism as he will be actively involved with us.

I don't see any reason to believe either of those things. You yourself admitted (or at least seemed to) that the placebo effect is quite powerful and can be drawn upon via prayer. As for revelation, I will have to direct you to every other religion with a conflicting 'revelation' and have you sort out which one is right.

Deism has not been scientifically debunked (though can it be?), so at least you would be vaguely honest here.

Theism hasn't been debunked either, there are arguments against it but that isn't debunking that's a difference of opinion.

By definition, something unfalsifiable cannot be debunked 100%. At that point I would say 99% is close enough.

The historical event it was perhaps based on won't have been anything at all like that but you can read it as parable of the kind Jesus told. Flood myths in general have a universal and far retching history so there is something there that seems to resonate with the human psyche. Noah happens to be the Bibles flood myth but you'll find one in the Hindu Vedas and many other religions and cultures.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it doesn't really help your case to admit that parts of the Bible are myth (despite some still taking them literally).

Deism only applies to a God who doesn't interact or reveal himself to us but I would say there is a strong case to be made that God has if you take a look at human history. Belief and worship of something no matter how ill defined has always been present in all cultures all the way back through civilization and beyond.

And they have always believed in and worshipped different gods, many of whom are now openly called 'myths'. Funny thing, huh? How is it that no two civilizations received the same revelation separately? If there is a god, he must have (or be) a very poor messenger.

[Esquilax]

If you don't have an alternative belief in Gods place you don't really have a reason to disagree with anyone.

Why would I need a belief in god's place? You don't need a replacement to something that doesn't have a basis in itself; your god claim is not the default position here. Do I need a belief in place of fairies? Bigfoot?

Whatever belief you have in place of God is not something you can prove so it may as well be a faith that is "not based on evidence".

No, I only believe in things that are proved to exist, buddy. You got the wrong end of the stick on this one.

You have various arguments and reasons to support the atheist view but that's the same thing as a belief in God it still isn't you can demonstrate.

Again, I don't need to support the idea that I don't believe you. I'm not making a claim, so I have nothing to do with atheism that requires evidence. I'm an agnostic atheist, pay attention to that; disbelief in god claims, no claim to knowledge otherwise entailed.

My entire position is, "your evidence is shitty."

A belief in God can be demonstrated as well but it's not scientific it's what you believe.

Funny how you never bother to do so.

You may as well say it's convenient that you can't have "proof and evidence of atheism". You can't have one and you can't have the other.

Only because you don't bother to listen.

Well reasoned arguments, subjective experience, history, revelation and that kind of thing. You do have to use apply some level of faith of course seeing as you can't know. You can't know either so it's the same difference.

I'm not claiming to know, though. You are, which is why you need evidence; faith and personal experience won't do it.

You can't see/detect God with sensory apparatus, that's what the Holy Spirit is for.

So you have no way of detecting god, his existence is indistinguishable from his nonexistence, and yet you believe anyway. Got it.

You're right it doesn't. Science covers all that.

Explanations tend to cover that too; when you ask a Why or How question, you don't want to get a What answer back, which is all "god did it" is. A What, without a corresponding How or Why to give that answer any meaning at all.

He would be like a demiurge if he did, that would be a being who formed the universe from already pre-existing material. The demiurge would be reasonable for the actual existence of what he works with and something else will have created the demiurge. This is something the Gnostics and Mormons believe in though I'm happy with the orthodox Christian view of God being the creator of the physical universe or universes if there is more than one.

You're really terrible at this whole "supporting your arguments," thing. Just asserting some fanfiction-ey property of Odin doesn't automatically make it so; you're trying to define my real argument out of existence simply by making unjustified assertions.

What you retrofitted still kind of works though, there were/are Christians who believe in a demiurge so that's viable if not very orthodox.

And yet the point still floats over your head.

It just confirms that the universe as we know it didn't always exist and time as experience had a point of origin. There could be multiple universes and all kind of things going on that we could potentially understand but regardless of the extent of existence it will still need a context, some kind of eternal foundation to rest in. We can only study what physically exists and can be observed and detected so God falls beyond all this however you try to cut it.

Uh huh, but you made a claim about what happened before the big bang, how ordered and perfectly designed it all was; you've made a claim to knowledge that literally nobody else in the world has, and you back it up with nothing.

My point is that you have a habit of making unsupported, likely untrue statements as though they were facts, and count as an argument. We're not obligated to respond to every random utterance you make, though; personally, I don't have the time to sit here and type a response to every unthinking "god did that," you write, and frankly, I shouldn't have to. Are you here for conversation and debate, or are you here to just spew your dogma at every reasonable question you get asked?

Neither do I but I do believe wasn't accidental but has the purpose to produce life and civilization, given the precise and complex nature of what into setting all this up. I also believe that God is the designer and creator all in one there's no point making it more complicated than it needs to be. One God and one creation of God.

That's cool; I'll do that too the moment I'm provided with some non-fallacious evidence for that.

You can't have any scientific evidence of the existence God so that's a moot point. You have to use other kinds of evidence and faith.

That's really a pity for your side, then; faith isn't a pathway to truth, and rational arguments don't necessarily conform to reality, if the premises you feed into them are flawed. You'll never get to justifiable evidence through those two things alone.

I could present you with the Bible but you wouldn't like it, and it's not like you're interested in an inner experience of God either. It depends what you want to accept as evidence when you can't ever have scientific evidence for the existence of something. But seeing as you can't ever have any scientific evidence of God by the definition of what he would be you don't have to worry about a conflict between faith and science. You can have both.

Why would I accept the bible as evidence? Would you accept the quran?

You have the premise of Gods existence as a reality and then the reasons as to why the premise is true and the counter argument/claim is not true. So that's the best you can do with it seeing as science has nothing to say on this issue. Science is limited to what we can see, detect and observe and it gives you the function and operation of natural physical processes. That's all it will ever be able to do so God is beyond it's scope.

If you have a belief that you've made unfalsifiable, you've also got a belief that you've made irrational.

I do but you keep saying "No because science" so that's what needs to be addressed before you can seriously consider the arguments in Gods favor.

Do you seriously not know the difference between an argument and an assertion?

You don't have to twist anything if science is not in conflict with God to begin with.

See? This is an "assertion." It's a claim that has been made, but right now has been supplied no evidence to back it up. Acceptance of this claim, right now, would be irrational. Once evidence and support has been supplied, such that this statement can be demonstrated to be true in the real world, it becomes an "argument," and can be rationally accepted, or rebutted by additional arguments.