Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Welsh cake]

As I said before, WC, no I was not.

You need to start over.

*sigh* I can't begin to understand why you'd be so intentionally wrapped up in such a silly exercise of self-deception while advocating your concept for god as some kind of 'universal truth' we've all wilfully ignoring. Were you trying to impress us with a "story" of conversion to theism? Would that make your argument somehow more credible? Well as you probably might have guessed the answer is a resounding "No".

People occasionally move between states of belief and non-belief, for various reasons throughout their lives. When I cared more about truth than religion I deconverted from Christianity. Simply stating atheists can convert is irrelevant to any argument for god's existence and utterly redundant in any case - everyone is born an atheist to begin with! Right now, you are making claims about the universe and beings that exist within reality that could possibly damage people’s wealth or health if taken out of context.

Don't expect people to be convinced by your arguments if you can't even manage being intellectually honest about yourself Watson.

[Samson]

Well, I say I don't know what "True Atheist" means because, n my belief, I have yet to truly meet a "True Atheist", and I never will. I mean no disrespect by it, I just don't believe in "True" Atheism.
I am an Agnostic Christian, which means I believe in the teachings, I believe in the ideas and principles of the Christian religion, but I do not know them or claim them to be true.

I'll disregard the part on your non-belief in someone being a True Atheist, but I am curious to know how you can state that you "Believe" in the teachings, Principles and Ideas of the Christian religion but/and also state you do not know them or claim them to be true?? That's simply a paradox in what you stated...

Furthermore, my belief in God is quite seperate from my Christianity, and based on my own personal experience, coupled with my observations of the world around me. I have read very little of the Bible, but I am aware of it's contents and meaning through study of this life I am living.

I do understand your meaning in the separation of a personal god in which you believe in, however, you could get just as much morality and personal content out of a self help to happiness book than the Christian one....

I don't plan on adding a sect of any kind, this is simply my personal experience with Christianity as I understand it. My interpretation of Christianity is based on my observations of God, rather than the other way around.

When you state your observations of god, in what way do you mean?

Well, if it helps; I choose Christianity because I find it the most broad in understanding and the best at describing the phenomenon we call 'life', the being we call 'God.' I also find that certain other religions do this very well, too, but none quite so precisely as Christianity. That is my take on it; a Muslim or a Buddhist may have a different take, just as you and the other Atheists on this site have differents take completely.
I believe they are Christian, but are not recognized as such because of the level of misrepresentation coming from Fundamentalists and other nutjobs.

I would say they are little more relaxed in comparison to the Islamic faith. The sad part is that the fundamentalist nutjobs you wrote about make up the majority here in the U.S. I can't speak for how it is in other countries who call themselves Christians.

Christianity has more depth to it than some would like to think, and takes a lot of study for one to undertsand it's true, underlying meaning.

The only depth and meaning is from the person that is giving it that, depth and meaning. There is reason for so many branches of faith based beliefs coming from one book. In the end, the bottom line is still human perception, not the label.

Thank you for your well wishes, haha. I do believe in a personal God; I believe that all major and minor religions out there are simply an attempt at describing that God in the best way they know how. Some have it better than others, and I only add the 'Agnostic' label to my Christianity because I merely believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings; I have no way of absolutely knowing for certain if He ever walk this earth.

For me personally, I believe there probably was a "Man" named Jesus or Yewah, or whatever, that tried to "Preach" to his people... I just look at him as being another human being spreading their opinions of what they believe to be truth, when it comes life of course... No more, no less....

[Tiberius]

Fully understanding something which has already been discovered is one thing (as with gravity). But completely failing to reproduce a scenario, and continuing to try for 500 years with no end in sight, is another (as with abiogenesis).

We have discovered things about abiogenesis though. We know that at one point in Earth's history, life did not exist. Then, at a later point, it did. Something must have happened to cause that life. Abiogenesis is the theory that attempts to explain how life came about from non-life.

In contrast with gravity, we discovered that objects fall to the ground, and the theory of gravity is an attempt to explain that. The only difference you can make between the two theories is that gravity is a theory that attempts to explain a current natural phenomenon, and abiogenesis is attempting to explain a previous natural phenomenon in Earth's history. Obviously it is going to be harder to demonstrate something that is thought to have occurred in the past rather than the present, because we don't have the present phenomenon to perform tests on (as we do with gravity).

At which point do scientists finally admit their experiments failed? For arguments' sake, let's say that the reality is that life cannot be produced from inanimate matter. At which point do scientific experiments prove that reality?

I've answered that question already. If the reality is that life cannot possibly be produced from inanimate matter, all you have to do to prove it is to demonstrate that such an event would violate a law of nature. We've done so before in science (i.e. proving that you cannot possibly go faster than the speed of light), and if someone finds a natural law that abiogenesis violates, it will be the end for the theory.

Let's say scientists try to invent a time travel machine. After how much time will they finally realize that their experiments have proven that a time travel machine is an impossibility?

Again: when they come across a law of nature that states time travel is impossible.

Are experiments for abiogenesis to remain open-ended and inconclusive for eternity?

No, and I'm starting to think you didn't even read my previous post. Two things can happen:

1) Scientists find that abiogenesis can be replicated, and thus it is perfectly possible.
2) Scientists find that abiogenesis violates a law of nature, and thus it is impossible.

Currently, we do not know which answer is correct. The evidence we have strongly suggests that abiogenesis is possible (since we've been able to create the building blocks of life from non-living matter), and so scientists are expanding their experiments in order to try and replicate the full "life from non-life" scenario.

Just because we haven't succeeded yet does not mean abiogenesis is impossible, nor does it mean that there is more evidence to suggest that abiogenesis is impossible. Lack of evidence for position (1) isn't evidence for position (2). Lack of evidence for position (1) only means that position (2) is still a possibility, and that more research must be done. For you to say "Well, you've had 500 years and nothing has come of it, so give up" is to reject the scientific method completely in favour of your strongly held belief that abiogenesis is impossible.

Science, on the other hand, doesn't care about being right or wrong; it cares about results. The scientists doing the experiments wouldn't care if their results concluded either position (1) or position (2), as long as they actually got a conclusion. Currently, they have no conclusion, so they continue their research.

Believers don't view God as supernatural. God is nature.

Well I think you'll find quite a few theistic philosophers will disagree with you there. As I understand it, God is supposed to have created nature.

Regardless, I fail to see how you can argue this as well as keeping your "anti-abiogenesis" position. If God is nature, then there is no difference between God creating life, and abiogenesis (which is nature creating life). What is the problem you have with abiogenesis then?

[Samson]

Adrian, you have much more patience than I, when trying to reply to him....

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Adrian, you have much more patience than I, when trying to reply to him....

Indeed. I gave up ages ago. It's like trying to communicate with an orang utan.

[Samson]

Indeed. I gave up ages ago. It's like trying to communicate with an orang utan.

Shouldn't that be combined together, "Orangutan"..... ...

Just f'ing with ya...

Pad, I agree and then some.....

If you have ever had kids (I have four, 3 girls/1 boy)...Then you understand the concept of, "Hair Pulling Frustrations"........lol

As the old saying goes..."It's like arguing with a brick wall"....

[AngelThMan]

Adrian, you have much more patience than I, when trying to reply to him....

Indeed. I gave up ages ago. It's like trying to communicate with an orang utan.

Maybe Adrian is a gentleman and can argue a point intelligently and politely even with someone who disagrees with him, and not like the two of you, who can only behave like orangutans.

[Paul the Human]

Or maybe Adrian just has more patience for conversations with brick walls.

I'm not sure what your goal is, Angel. You introduce what you think is evidence that god exists and when several people give you several reasons that it is not evidence, you simply continue to insist that it is, as if you are obsessed with getting everyone to see it your way. That is a form of proselytizing, which I'm pretty sure is against the rules. When people disagree with you and explain why, you say that they are not considering your evidence... which they just got finished explaining is not evidence. You have no room for those that disagree. You are so sure you are right that you will not even listen to reason.

Then, when people begin to lose patience with having to repeat the same things over and over again in hopes of getting through to you, you begin to lash out like a child that has been told no. You take quotes out of context and argue things that the original person wasn't even saying. It's really gotten ridiculous. You aren't doing yourself any favors by continuing this particular argument and the only reason I can imagine that you are doing it is that you are desperate to convince someone, anyone that you are right. Maybe the person you are so desperate to convince is you. The only thing you've been able to demonstrate so far is that you have no idea what the word 'evidence' actually means.

If you keep on this way, more and more people will begin making fun of you for it. Either that or they will begin ignoring you entirely. I'm going to suggest once more that you stop trying to convert us all to your way of thinking. It is not going to happen. Join into other conversations on the site. Joke around with people a little in other threads. You don't seem like a bad guy and I think you could get along just fine with the community as a whole if you stop this crusade of yours. It's not as if theists can't be well liked around here, but you must have noticed by now that the ones that are do not act the way you are acting.

[AngelThMan]

Why don't you lighten up, Paul?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Shouldn't that be combined together, "Orangutan"....

Well,yes and no. That's how it's written in English. However,the word is actually composed off two Malay/Indonesian words 'orang' (man) and (h)utan (forest) It's usually translated as ' man of the forest' which is how I always think of them,having lived in Malaysia and seen them in the wild*

Probably an unfair analogy;Orangs are beautiful and intelligent creatures and can be taught. This does not apply to most apologists ,who argue from a position of personal certitude,unable/ unwilling to entertain the possibility of error.. ..


*by 'them' I mean two, once,40 odd years ago in deep jungle on army patrol..