Scientist Makes Organic Matter out of Inorganic Matter

[rjh4 is back]

yeah... i would say that the connection I make between a-biological organic chemistry and abiogenesis may be considered a leap of faith but I wouldn't put it in the same category as miracles esp. events written about in the Bible such as walking on water, the resurrection, and a guy getting gobbled up by a fish.

Fair enough.

there's a big difference between believing events contradictory to physics and medicine happened 2,000 years ago when knowledge and communication was scarce and believing abiogenesis is consistent with complex organic molecules existing abiologically.

Not if one starts from a position that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. If you start with a position that God exists, isn't it reasonable to conclude that He could easily do things that are contrary to how we view physics and medicine today?

All the philosophies or methods I adhere to are productive, being of great value to our technological advance.

Me too.

[b]The only priori I abide by is one should not believe in something for which there is insufficient or no evidence:

Sounds good. But I'm not sure that it really is the case. For example, you say you believe in metaphysical naturalism. According to wiki, this "is a world view and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences". Then for you to believe in this, there must be some evidence that there is "nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences" because if there is no such evidence or sufficient evidence of this, you should not believe in it according to your own standard.

Furthermore, how do you evaluate any evidence using this priori? Evidence isn't something that has only one possible explanation. For most evidence there are different possible explanations that are contradictory. How does your priori help you decide about where the evidence leads? Metaphysical naturalism would certainly aid in doing this, but then that would be a priori and you deny that it is that for you.

What's your priori?

I already told you.

I'm glad there are some people that don't limit themselves by "God did it" and continue to investigate possibilities that are relevant to facts (science).

Me too. Just because I believe God exists and that He created the universe doesn't mean that I don't have an interest in science, how things work, and how to apply the knowledge that we have.

You believe that the Bible is the word of God? Why? What evidence do you have that a deity is responsible for the Bible?

There are many book written on the subject that are filled with such evidence. I would suggest that you read one if you haven't already. Of course, based on your priori, you must have already read all the books there are that give evidence for such things, otherwise you could not reasonably believe that God does not exist. I do not think there is any evidence that necessitates my position but I also think there is no evidence that necessitates a different position. (I think faith is required not matter what your worldview is.) I have no desire to argue with you about any specific bit of evidence so I will decline to provide more.

Actually, the Bible is inerrant and even contradictory: hardly the work of an all-loving, omnipotent deity. You'd think if a deity truly existed that he'd make sure the book that represents it was at least not contradictory.

I disagree. For every potential contradiction, there is a potential explanation. There are plenty of web sites on both sides that deal with these issues. Maybe where you see contradictions, you are understanding it incorrectly.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Actually, the Bible is inerrant and even contradictory: hardly the work of an all-loving, omnipotent deity. You'd think if a deity truly existed that he'd make sure the book that represents it was at least not contradictory.

rjh4:
I disagree. For every potential contradiction, there is a potential explanation. There are plenty of web sites on both sides that deal with these issues. Maybe where you see contradictions, you are understanding it incorrectly.

I've argued with theists and read creationist literature for years... "understanding it incorrectly": when "the word" of an omnipotent deity is hard to understand, maybe it's not the word of an omnipotent deity? don't just say that there are books out there: i could equally say that for every potential explanation for a contradiction there is a refutation for that explanation that you haven't read and so on. Give me some reasons why you think the Bible is the word of a deity.

---

rjh4: For example, you say you believe in metaphysical naturalism. According to wiki, this "is a world view and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences". Then for you to believe in this, there must be some evidence that there is "nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences" because if there is no such evidence or sufficient evidence of this, you should not believe in it according to your own standard.

There is tons of evidence for the 'natural world' we experience the natural world everyday; I can't say the same for the 'supernatural world' though. (Ever watch the series 'Supernatural'?) Metaphysical Naturalism aside, if there was evidence for supernatural things -- even if they were completely inconsistent with the laws of physics --- I would believe supernatural things exist, but there isn't (mostly anecdotal or 'personal evidence').

[rjh4 is back]

I've argued with theists and read creationist literature for years... "understanding it incorrectly": when "the word" of an omnipotent deity is hard to understand, maybe it's not the word of an omnipotent deity?

Some of the things I have read from atheists make it hard for me to believe they have even tried to read with understanding (not you as we have never had such a discussion). They seem to hold to the position that if it is mentioned in the Bible, God must condone it. Quite a shortsighted view, in my opinion. For example, I have read that the Bible in Judges chapter 21 is evidence that God condones rape, murder, etc. I don't see it. While what it says may provide an indication that rape and murder occurred, I do not see anything indicating that God condoned it. In fact, if you read the last verse of Judges 21 there is an indication that this behavior was NOT appropriate. (To understand the whole story, you also need to go back and read chapters 18-20.)

don't just say that there are books out there: i could equally say that for every potential explanation for a contradiction there is a refutation for that explanation that you haven't read and so on.

Quite true.

Give me some reasons why you think the Bible is the word of a deity.

---

Why are you so interested? ...Especially since the likelihood of me saying something you have not heard before is unlikely and would probably include "personal evidence" that you wouldn't find convincing anyway.

Metaphysical Naturalism aside, if there was evidence for supernatural things -- even if they were completely inconsistent with the laws of physics --- I would believe supernatural things exist, but there isn't (mostly anecdotal or 'personal evidence').

How would you distinguish something supernatural from something natural that you just don't have an explanation for yet?

[Jaysyn]

How would you distinguish something supernatural from something natural that you just don't have an explanation for yet?

Miracles, by nature & definition, cannot have a natural explanation. If they did, they wouldn't be miracles & would fall under the domain of science.

[rjh4 is back]

How would you distinguish something supernatural from something natural that you just don't have an explanation for yet?

Miracles, by nature & definition, cannot have a natural explanation. If they did, they wouldn't be miracles & would fall under the domain of science.

I don't know as I agree with such a definition of miracles but, even so, that doesn't answer my question. If you are open to the possibility of miracles, how would you know when you saw one? How would you, personally, distinguish a miracle from a natural occurrence or coincidence? What test would you use? If you are telling me that anything that "can" have a natural explanation is not a miracle or supernatural, then it seems to me you position boils down to an a priori position that there are no such things as miracles or the supernatural since man can always provide a possible natural explanation for something even though they cannot reproduce it (in which case it would seem like you are not really open to the possibility).

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I've argued with theists and read creationist literature for years... "understanding it incorrectly": when "the word" of an omnipotent deity is hard to understand, maybe it's not the word of an omnipotent deity?

Some of the things I have read from atheists make it hard for me to believe they have even tried to read with understanding (not you as we have never had such a discussion). They seem to hold to the position that if it is mentioned in the Bible, God must condone it. Quite a shortsighted view, in my opinion. For example, I have read that the Bible in Judges chapter 21 is evidence that God condones rape, murder, etc. I don't see it. While what it says may provide an indication that rape and murder occurred, I do not see anything indicating that God condoned it. In fact, if you read the last verse of Judges 21 there is an indication that this behavior was NOT appropriate. (To understand the whole story, you also need to go back and read chapters 18-20.)

well... there is a verse about stoning homosexuals. isn't there? that would be 'condoning murder', but that's probably not the best example of a contradiction. I think a better example is how the gospels aren't consistent on what day Jesus was born or died.

Give me some reasons why you think the Bible is the word of a deity.

---

rtjh: Why are you so interested? ...Especially since the likelihood of me saying something you have not heard before is unlikely and would probably include "personal evidence" that you wouldn't find convincing anyway.

I'm interested because maybe you do have a reason I haven't heard and if you have reasons I have heard then maybe you'll be interested in my opinion about those reasons. If all you have is 'personal evidence' i'm not interested in a story that can be explained by a placebo effect or depression/anxiety induced hallucination or a plastic bag floating around...

Metaphysical Naturalism aside, if there was evidence for supernatural things -- even if they were completely inconsistent with the laws of physics --- I would believe supernatural things exist, but there isn't (mostly anecdotal or 'personal evidence').

How would you distinguish something supernatural from something natural that you just don't have an explanation for yet?

hm... that's a good question. I've heard that Newton thought that certain aspects of the solar system were supernatural because he could not explain certain orbits and that would be the same mistake I could be making if i say that ghosts are supernatural because they contradict certain aspects of physics or i simple don't know how to explain their existence (if they did exist). But, it really depends on the context of the supernatural occurrence: if a pastor prays in the name of his deity on an amputee and the leg reappears, whether it's supernatural or natural, the phenomena is evidence that belief in that deity has physical affect.

[rjh4 is back]

well... there is a verse about stoning homosexuals. isn't there? that would be 'condoning murder', but that's probably not the best example of a contradiction.

There is Leviticus 20:13. Whether or not you believe that this is condoning "murder" I guess would depend on your definition of "murder". If you think it is "murder", though, it seems to me that to be consistent you would also take the position that the US (or at least certain states) also practices in "condoning murder" as they also have the death penalty as a consequence of certain behavior.

Leviticus is a book of the Bible that lists certain laws that the Israelites were to abide by as well as the consequences/punishment for not abiding by them. This is similar to the laws that we all abide by in whatever country in which we live. If we don't follow the rules, the government applies the consequences. For the Israelite society, I would say that God said that homosexuality was against the law and that the consequence of breaking that law was the death penalty. It was the society/government that was to carry out the punishment, just like today.

Consequently, I would not say that this is "condoning murder" just like I do not think that the death penalty in certain states is "condoning murder".

Now before someone starts harping on me like I said it is ok for Christians to go around killing homosexuals, I did not imply any such thing. While I think that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible indicates it is an abomination to God, the Bible also indicates that we are to follow the laws of the land. In this country, there is no law against homosexuality or even if there is, the consequence is not the death penalty. Furthermore, even if there was a law against homosexuality and the consequence was the death penalty, it is not for me personally to judge such things and administer the punishment. That is the government's job. Just like if someone came and killed my family in cold blood, it is not for me to kill that person, it is the government's job to judge and apply consequences.

So, rjh4...you might ask...how do you think you should act towards homosexuals (or any other person that you think does not follow what God says is right in the Bible or treats you wrongly)? Good question! See Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 5:43-47 for the answer.

I think a better example is how the gospels aren't consistent on what day Jesus was born or died.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. As far as I know, the Bible says nothing about the day on which Jesus was born. As for the day he died, please provide the contradiction.

I'm interested because maybe you do have a reason I haven't heard and if you have reasons I have heard then maybe you'll be interested in my opinion about those reasons. If all you have is 'personal evidence' i'm not interested in a story that can be explained by a placebo effect or depression/anxiety induced hallucination or a plastic bag floating around...

Plastic bag floating around???? Please explain as there must be a story to that. As to depression/anxiety induced hallucination, I don't think I have ever had such a hallucination. Regarding a placebo effect, probably all "personal evidence" could be explained as such or something else.

Ok...in the interest of honest, open discussion, I will provide a synopsis of the reasons. It is the combination, not each individually, that constitutes the reason.

1. The Bible claims to be the Word of God.
2. Fulfilled prophecy, i.e., the Bible saying things that will happen and they come to be.
3. Historicity of the Bible.

On the last two, I certainly recognize that there are those, such as Min here, that would certainly take issue with these (and I put them here to help answer your question...not to get into a debate on all sorts of specifics). However, there is much written on both sides of the issue and I have found that those writing on the side of prophecy being fulfilled and the Bible being historical to be more compelling.

4. The Bible tells how humans are (sinful) and I know that it is true because I know myself.
5. The Bible tells how those sins can be forgiven and I know this also is true as I have done it and know there is a difference in me.

I doubt this is much help to you but there it is.

But, it really depends on the context of the supernatural occurrence: if a pastor prays in the name of his deity on an amputee and the leg reappears, whether it's supernatural or natural, the phenomena is evidence that belief in that deity has physical affect.

...or merely evidence that the pastor can pull some good parlor trick. I do not think there is one thing that could ever happen that someone couldn't come up with some naturalistic explanation for. You see, even if it was your leg that reappeared and you knew that God restored it and as a result you became a Christian, you could tell others and they would be skeptical and think you were trying to pull a fast one on them and not be convinced at all. Would their lack of belief in such an instance minimize or render ineffective the reasons for your belief? The answer should be no. Likewise, you say there is no evidence of God even though you say you are open to the possibility, I say everything you see is evidence of God existing and the Bible being the Word of God (just because some things do have a natural explanation doesn't mean that it is not also evidence of God existing).

[Paul the Human]

Here is where the 'floating plastic bag' reference is from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JobUrsonks

On the last two, I certainly recognize that there are those, such as Min here, that would certainly take issue with these (and I put them here to help answer your question...not to get into a debate on all sorts of specifics). However, there is much written on both sides of the issue and I have found that those writing on the side of prophecy being fulfilled and the Bible being historical to be more compelling.

I suggest that you find those arguments more compelling, because they support what you already believe. You look at the arguments with a preconceived notion that god exists and with the desire to be correct, which makes arguments that support that desire more compelling than those that do not.

You probably want to tell me that atheists do the same thing, but that isn't true. We look with the desire to discover the truth... not to confirm a belief.

Okay. Sorry to butt in. Those are the only two things I wanted to address. I now return you and TFS to your regularly scheduled discussion.

[rjh4 is back]

Here is where the 'floating plastic bag' reference is from.

Thanks, Paul.

I suggest that you find those arguments more compelling, because they support what you already believe. You look at the arguments with a preconceived notion that god exists and with the desire to be correct, which makes arguments that support that desire more compelling than those that do not.

That is certainly a valid issue to raise. I don't think that I do this but who knows, maybe I do.

You probably want to tell me that atheists do the same thing, but that isn't true. We look with the desire to discover the truth... not to confirm a belief.

I think you can only speak for yourself and not all atheists and just because you don't think that you do this doesn't necessarily mean you don't. I, too, want the truth and I think I have found it.

Okay. Sorry to butt in. Those are the only two things I wanted to address. I now return you and TFS to your regularly scheduled discussion.

No problem. I will await TFS's response.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

But, it really depends on the context of the supernatural occurrence: if a pastor prays in the name of his deity on an amputee and the leg reappears, whether it's supernatural or natural, the phenomena is evidence that belief in that deity has physical affect.

...or merely evidence that the pastor can pull some good parlor trick.

that's an overdose of skepticism: if i were going to go that far, I might as well believe that all of evolutionary biology is a big conspiracy to promote atheism. if prayer was a reproducible cure for amputees, I would reconsider my world view.

rjh4: (just because some things do have a natural explanation doesn't mean that it is not also evidence of God existing).

the problem is that what there are natural explanations for is contradictory to certain interpretations of the Bible. According to the Bible, God created the stars; however, there is a natural explanation for the stars according to astrophysicists. You'd expect that God created the elements that make us up and all the elements on the periodic table, but there is a natural explanation for the origins of all the elements on the periodic table according to nuclear physicists. You'd think that God created species, esp. our species, but there is an explanation for the origins of species. There may not be an explanation for the origins of life, but our advance in technology has also lead to the superseding of superstitious belief or made the role of a deity vague, so i suspect that just as lighting now is not popularly recognized as an act of a deity but rather a meteorological event, so will life one day be recognized as a natural event.