RE: Theism is literally childish
November 13, 2017 at 12:00 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2017 at 12:10 pm by Whateverist.)
(November 13, 2017 at 8:35 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(November 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm)possibletarian Wrote: In Pauls letters even Revelation and the bible (supposedly the word of god) thinks that too.. you see our problem ?
The problem is arguing over scripture with people who will accept any interpretation so long as it's wrong. But ill get back to this later.
That fits like a glove with the problem of arguing with people who will always assume it is right. Oh well, ships signaling to pass safely in the night I suppose.
(November 13, 2017 at 10:07 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(November 13, 2017 at 6:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: That is entirely the opposite of Occam's razor.
Writing as someone who has actually read Occam, his position was that people should prefer the explanation that requires the least number of causal factors needed to sufficiently account for all the relevant phenomena. At least for now, abiogenesis cannot be sufficiently explained by any known combination of physical necessity and chance over time. That does not automatically make Divine intervention the prefered hypothesis but neither can it yet be ruled out. Simply having a bias for ontological naturalism doesn't ensure a natural explanation will be found. And if I remember the point of RR's example was not to claim abiogensis was true; but rather, to provide an example of something most atheists believe is true despite any supporting evidence. And since some here are defining belief in something without evidence as delusional that would mean that, at least on this one point, those atheists are delusional. Personally, I find that a sound comparison.
"Abiogenesis' isn't a very specific claim. It really just states that we assume it happened in the same way everything else we've ever discovered, naturally. No instances of 'supernatural' phenomenon have ever been documented, except of course those relying on eye witness accounts. Of that type we have many with the National Enquirer being a good source document for the curious.
We do not yet understand how every thing came to be as it is, and may never. But until at least one non-natural phenomenon is shown to exist, I see no reason to hypothesize that any of the yet not understood phenomenon may represent the the intervention of supernatural forces.