Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Angrboda]

[Ryantology]

No, I would not use empiricism to justify my belief in God.

Another example: let's suppose I have purchased a bicycle from a shop. Let's assume that nobody witnessed or has knowledge of me buying or even owning the bicycle. A few years down the line I have lost the receipt of purchase and the company from which I purchased the bicycle dissolved. Suppose in a public setting I lock the bike and lose the key, and there is another person who comes along and makes a convincing reasoned argument and claims that the bike actually belongs to him or her. With absolutely no evidence (documentary, anecdotal or otherwise), how can I possibly prove to somebody that the bike is my property? The only real possibilities are: a person is going to believe me, a person is going to disbelieve me, or a person is going to reserve judgement. For a person who disbelieves me, he or she is perfectly within his or her rights because I have provided absolutely no firm evidence that the bike belongs to me. A person might choose to believe that I am telling the truth based on intuition, in which case reason is trumped by intuition in this instance and does, in fact, lead to the truth of the matter.

If you had a bike which, you insist, is invisible and intangible and I could only ride it if I opened my heart to it and believed it was real, you'd have a much more appropriate metaphor.

[Love]

.....

[A_Nony_Mouse]

How do you build a self-replicating organic structure from scratch in such a way that the process is an inevitable part of physics?

You probably don't. Neither do I, scientists or God. Life, like rust, just happens. It seems to be a potential state of certain inorganic materials in the same way ice is a potential state of liquids. If life were not a potential state for inorganic materials, neither God nor abiogenesis could 'create' it. But since it demonstrably is, no God or alien seeding theory is required.

May I point out much depends upon the definition? I know exactly how to do what that definition says by dropping a salt crystal into a supersaturated saltwater solution. If the definition is "organic" which only means a molecule with a carbon in it, I doubt it would take long to find something similar to the table salt crystal.

My point is there is no boundary between life and non-life that is clear enough to state in a non-scientific manner.

[Whateverist]

When I say "guided", I am referring to the following: I feel that the laws of physics and chemistry were devised in such a way that abiogenesis and biological evolution would be an inevitable outcome, a view that is shared by the professor of Biology Kenneth Miller, among others. You could, in a sense, view it as creation, but I strongly disagree with the "creationism" movement (that totally rejects the theory of evolution). I fully accept the theory of evolution.

Well if that is all you meant by "guided" then it would be awfully hard to tell the difference between such divine participation and the nature of physics and chemistry being as they are without such guidance.

But that surprises me. From what you said before, I would've expected much more divine involvement that that.*

And why is natural selection unworthy of having been utilized by god? Natural selection surely is the way of it, so if god did not intend for it to play the role it does, then god is not responsible for the animals we see today .. including us of course.

*

We also haven't a clue as to how sexual reproduction evolved - or for that matter why. None of the benefits from it sufficiently offset the "cost" associated with it..

Indeed, I also find evolution by natural selection to be extremely counter intuitive. In fact, I find quantum mechanics and general relativity easier to comprehend than evolution by natural selection. There are many things in "unguided" evolution that don't make a great deal of sense, such as the aspect of sexual reproduction that you mentioned and also the emergence of subjective consciousness. I think the idea that evolution is unguided asks far too much of human credulity. This is why I believe that evolution is God's chosen method of formation.

WTF? Are you kidding me? God creates the conditions for abiogenesis and 'evolution' but you guys want to second guess the invention of sex and its role? How about speeding up the rate of variation/mutation thus allowing for -among other critters- us to evolve within the useful lifetime of the star we circle?

Seriously, I don't have a problem with theists feeling/believing that there is some cosmic intentionality going on in the progression from matter to life to consciousness and sapience. Honestly, if we were sitting around a campfire under a sky full of stars, eating s'mores and speculating for all we were worth .. this would fit right in, and I could keep up. But it is a long way from deciding this is your pet theory and arguing for it persuasively. So far, I am the one feeling credulous but not about adequacy of evolution to account for our origins.

---

That's got to hurt. Mmm, but what a way to go.

Are you sure she isn't just trying to face palm this guy with her panty clad quim? Mmm.

[Love]

Well if that is all you meant by "guided" then it would be awfully hard to tell the difference between such divine participation and the nature of physics and chemistry being as they are without such guidance.

But that surprises me. From what you said before, I would've expected much more divine involvement that that.*

Yes, I understand Occam's Razor and I can see that invoking God to explain abiogenesis and evolution might be perceived as gratuitous and superfluous. Although it could be considered as an argument from personal incredulity, I cannot comprehend the following idea: the pure, unguided process of evolution from the last universal common ancestor (prokaryotic cell) eventually evolved into the outrageously sophisticated human brain, including subjective consciousness, all in the name of survival and gene propagation. I am not saying that it is impossible, and I might obviously be completely incorrect, but the process of evolution being unguided just doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Clearly you think unguided makes more sense; therefore, we should just agree to disagree.

And why is natural selection unworthy of having been utilized by god? Natural selection surely is the way of it, so if god did not intend for it to play the role it does, then god is not responsible for the animals we see today .. including us of course.

When I stated that God implemented the laws of physics of chemistry, this includes the laws of biology and natural selection (which are ultimately governed by the laws of physics and chemistry).

WTF? Are you kidding me? God creates the conditions for abiogenesis and 'evolution' but you guys want to second guess the invention of sex and its role? How about speeding up the rate of variation/mutation thus allowing for -among other critters- us to evolve within the useful lifetime of the star we circle?

Well, there are many competing theories as to why sexual reproduction evolved; you appear to have chosen the idea that makes the most sense to you. It is another complex area. I am skeptical as to whether there will ever be a single interpretation of the available evidence (like quantum mechanics).

[Whateverist]

Clearly you think unguided makes more sense; therefore, we should just agree to disagree.

No problem.

Well, there are many competing theories as to why sexual reproduction evolved; you appear to have chosen the idea that makes the most sense to you. It is another complex area. I am skeptical as to whether there will ever be a single interpretation of the available evidence (like quantum mechanics).

Just to be clear, I'm only suggesting that had it not happened there might never have been the amount of variation required to result in creatures as complex as ourselves to pose the question. I don't, of course, think that implies any purpose/motive to its happening.

[Baalzebutt]

Hmmmm....

Death by asian schoolgirl. This is how you get to see heaven BEFORE you die!

[downbeatplumb]

If its cold enough for jumpers why are they wearing such short skirts and no tights?

They'll catch their death.

[Love]

If God can be percieved rationally he is contingent upon certain logical restrictions. If he cannot be percieved logically, it is an irrational, illogical belief.

I have never claimed that God can be perceived rationally, except in cases where we are theoretically reflecting on the concept of God or having a conversation like this. One of the core themes of this thread is my argument that rationalism/reason has limits. Of course, reason cannot be avoided whilst having this exceedingly interesting discussion via textual language. I believe that human beings can experience God by transcendental consciousness. That is, transcending beyond the sensory system into a state of infinite awareness, an experience that can be augmented by the use of psychedelic drugs like mescaline or DMT.

Example: Seeing my face melt off without causing harm to my body can only be achieved by taking LSD. It doesn't mean it actually happened.

I think psychedelic drugs provide people with the opportunity to expand consciousness beyond reason, into a conscious state that I feel is literally beyond the limits of rational human language. In a word "indescribable". Of course, if you're only interested in using them for recreational purposes, then you're going to reflect on the experience from that frame of reference. I used psychedelic drugs for mystical experience and consciousness expansion.

Nope, but I have a picture of me holding my son. I watched him laugh this morning as he made my dog chase a light up and down the hall way. When I tucked him in bed last night, he told me he loved me and even showed me in sign language with his hand. He woke me up this morning and told me he didn't want me to go to work because he wanted to stay home and play with me. I didn't wake up one day and all of the sudden begin describing the feelings associated with my actual son and assign them to a character I read in a book.

Is there anything in life that you just "know" based on pure intuition? Or do you always require empirical evidence to gain knowledge about something?