RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
January 3, 2019 at 12:22 am
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2019 at 12:29 am by T0 Th3 M4X.)
(January 2, 2019 at 11:01 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If you see the big bang as an effect, then your silly god has physical effects, and that puts it well within the purview of scientific inquiry. The unfalsifiability of the "supernatural" is what people retreat to..but not what people believe. We're absolute garbage at coming up with genuinely unfalsifiable propositions. Probably has something to do with being a meat mind in a material world. All of our referents are equally material...and so too, do we imagine god to be, even if we bullshit people for pages and pages only to shoot ourselves in the foot with a single sentence.
That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none. If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me. I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter. I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it. The cause determines the effect, not the other way around. As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands? Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God" Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism. Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead. Might save me a headache.
(January 2, 2019 at 11:53 pm)Amarok Wrote: Louis Pasteurs idea's only applied to spontaneous generation not abiogenesis .
It wasn't Pasteur's idea. He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments. The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it. So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.
