(August 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Because, in my claim (I thought is was -our- claim, lol?) , god played in the dirt with organic chemistry. Go outside, play in the dirt, with organic chemistry. You'll find that evidence has been left of your having done so.
Cretinists, and you as well, make precisely this claim when they refer to "probabilistic objections". That, the act of something having played in the dirt with organic chemistry to produce life is beyond the remit of pure happenstance. This would be evidence of some agent - if it were true, and we would see that in our genes - as an unbroken line of heredity from that moment to this moment. Unfortunately ( for cretinists, anyway), it's not. Let's not have an infantile back and forth about shirking the burden of proof - I don't claim a god, I only point out that those who do shoulder that burden, and however they answer that will determine what sort of evidence we could expect. Banana God leaves banana evidence, or should...Gene God leaves genetic evidence, or should.
But none of this explains how you would be able to discern the difference. Is it rational to say you could test any proposed god without putting forth any standard for determining what evidence you would accept as evidence for and evidence against the proposition? Is it rational to say simply that one would know?
As to the probabilistic objections...didn't I withdraw mine!
Khemikal Wrote:Did you have any comments on the rest of my post? I'd just like to be sure that were still understanding each other...because I have a habit of putting blocks on top of previous blocks. I was forced to play with legos, alot, as a child - part of a sick secular social experiment to identify and categorize the ubermensch.
No...no other comments. I think we are understanding each other.
P.S. We still have a bazillion Legos at my house from when my kids were small. I wonder if there is an aftermarket for them.
