My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[GrandizerII]

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made?

If we'e talking about something grand such as the universe or the cosmos or whatever, then there's no warranted assumption that these entities had an intelligent maker, because we only observe one local universe (or the whole cosmos) and we have no idea if it did have an intelligent maker. Do you believe God had a maker as well? No, you don't. Similarly, I don't believe the universe had a maker.

Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker?

To be accurate, we are to assume that it did not have a maker because we lack the evidence to determine that it did.

Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is?

I guess so. The more universes, the better. Don't you agree this is, at least slightly, a better way to determine if this local universe had a maker than to blindly assume it did?

I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations.

But ... ?

But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific?

The postulation need not be scientific in order for one to make a logical postulation. Even so, one can use the discoveries made in science to make logical inferences about things and events we can't directly observe.

There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis.

Science isn't just about observations. Logical inferences can be made from scientific discoveries and be considered scientific as well (e.g., the inference that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, based on the observation that the universe has been expanding and other stuff).
 

Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief.

Or in terms of scientific findings and/or as a part of logical arguments.

However, the belief about the origin can and should be based on observation of the things that exist.

This almost sounds like this is ... scientific.

If a belief states that evolution took place in order for the things that exist today to have come to be the way they are now, then it would make sense that that belief and statement would be based on having observed such things occur.

Evolution is not a mere belief. It is a fact of life. And it is a process that still happens to this day because it is the natural thing to do.

If nothing has ever been observed to have evolved (species to species, not adaptation within kind), then how can it be a scientific statement?

I will leave it to those well-versed in biological evolution to provide examples of observing species-to-species evolution, but assuming we haven't yet, biological evolution is still a scientific fact because of the abundance of evidence in various fields of scientific inquiry that all converge onto the same conclusion: biological evolution being a thing. Creationism (on the other hand) cannot account for all the evidence that is explainable by evolution, at least not without resorting to ad hoc arguments.

Also, "kind" is not really a scientific word in the context of biological evolution. Unlike "species". So do be careful with the conflating.

It can still be a belief. Anything can be believed. But without observation, how can a belief be said to be scientific?

The problem with your argument is that evolution is based on clear scientific observations.

Origin has not been observed, so any statement about it is a belief.

Origin of biological evolution? Do you mean abiogenesis, which is to do with the origin of life but not with what happens after that? We have made some discoveries in science to show that abiogenesis is at least plausible. So no God needed.

Evolution has not been observed, so any statement about it is also a belief.

Not true that evolution has not been observed. What you mean is that macro-evolution has probably not been observed. But even then, evolution on the macro scale is a logical extension of the observations that have been made in this context.

God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it.

Now that, I agree with.

But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either?

Evolution is a scientific fact because of what I already pointed out above (so no need to repeat here). As for God creating the universe, well yeah, that's obviously not a scientific statement because we see nothing in our observations that must necessarily or likely point to such an entity.

Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe.

Duh. You don't need a Bible to know that animals reproduce after their own "kind".

Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed.

Uh, dogs evolving from wolves is a historical fact.

So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind.

I agree. Therefore, evolution. Since we've never observed God, either directly or indirectly.

But again, either way, it is just a belief.

Yes, belief in God is just a belief.

[shadow]

Humans are creators and are intelligent. We are also narcissistic. We can not understand how everything came to be without someone like us. Hence, we create gods like ourselves. Primates in the sky!

I think this is a really good point. I hadn't thought of it this way before.

[bennyboy]

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made? Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker? Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is? 

I think I can summarize your position: made up answers are better than simply saying, "I don't know."

OR you can observe reality, and make the best guesses you can. Nothing about our reality really tells us why or how it exists-- therefore the only thing to be said is that cosmogony is a mystery. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[JackRussell]

Erm, evolution has been observed.....both in the lab and in nature. Off the top of my head, Lenski's work in the lab and Cichlids in African lakes.

Just a silly creationist trope to say otherwise.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Humans have supervised the development of a single species into several different species. We say that it's a "species" if it can breed and reproduce successfully together. Now, let's take an example:



Just like trying to cross a Smart car and a Peterbilt, the parts don't fit.

[bennyboy]

. . . except these aren't a different species. They're both dogs.

[Dan Brooks]

It's a fact that no one knows how the universe got here (that's to say it even had a beginning).

Claiming a God did it is so lazy though, requires no logic. When the thought occurs that this God needs to have some sort of proof for existence or (besides human fairy tales) or even an origin, the excuse used is just "it's beyond human understanding" or "not of the natural world" or something to this effect.

Well yes, great to admit there are things beyond our understanding, like you know, the origin of the universe? No? not beyond theist understanding i guess

It's like theists are selectively rational. When it comes to the specific religion they were brainwashed in, their minds just switch off. But any other religion can be picked apart with amazing critical thinking.

bold mine

I'm not sure it's just/only lazy. I think that for most it fills or helps them with an emotional need. The biggest one that comes to mind is fear.

But Genesis tells us how God made it. It doesn't go into the technical details of "how" He did it, but it tells us the order in which He made everything. It's not like we just made it up. It's just a matter of whether we believe the account or not. So how God did it, is beyond our understanding in a certain sense. The fact that He said, "Let there be light," and there was light, has to be accepted (for a believer, that is). We don't know how God could do that. God is beyond our understanding. 
I don't know about it being lazy, but I do admit that it is easier to believe that God made it. It's logical. It makes sense. Everything else is made. Why not the universe? And of course if the universe was made, then certain characteristics of the maker must be true, such as intelligence and power. So then it's just a matter of what God did it. Is it the God of the Bible or some other God? Well there has been no other God who revealed to us the things of the past before man was here, how things came to be, and how things will end, and what will be afterward. So what other God is there to believe in? 
There are parts of Scripture that, if the reader doesn't believe in God's existence, could be passed off as, as you said, human fairy tales. But when you come to things like the book of Revelation, which was written 2,000 years ago and lays out the future in fairly good detail, how can that be passed off as a fairy tale? I find it much harder to believe that an old man banished to an island just sat don one day and wrote a comprehensive account of the entire future to the end of the world and afterward, and got it right by just guessing. He had to have gotten the information from somewhere, and I have no reason to believe it wasn't from the source he said it was from. Even if you just look at the mark and number of the beast, you can see the number everywhere now, and of course the mark is already beginning to be implemented, though not by force as of yet. And of course forcing everyone on earth to worship the beast and receive his mark, how could that happen unless there was a global empire? Well that's coming about too. In order for Revelation 13 to happen, there would have to be a global government, a global religion, and a global currency, and all three of those things are getting closer to occurring. There are things written in there that couldn't have been made up, because it didn't exist when he wrote it. If only some of the things he wrote come to pass, then we could say it was a good guess. Some of Nostradamus' predictions have come to pass here and there. Good guess. But if everything written in Revelation comes to pass, then I think that's a little better than a good guess. We'd have to assume that most likely the one he said revealed it to him really did reveal it to him. So I guess we'll see.
As for fear, yes it is a comfort against fear. It says "Fear not" or "do not be afraid" hundreds of times in the Bible. And it is a comfort to know that the one who is in control of everything actually cares about you. And I can hardly wait to meet Him face to face and be with Him.

---

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made? Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker? Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is? 

I think I can summarize your position: made up answers are better than simply saying, "I don't know."

OR you can observe reality, and make the best guesses you can.  Nothing about our reality really tells us why or how it exists-- therefore the only thing to be said is that cosmogony is a mystery.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

When did I say that made up answers are better than saying "I don't know"? I said that anything that anyone can say about origins is based on conjecture and belief. No one was here to observe it happening. Whether someone says, "I believe God created the universe," or someone else says, "I believe the universe has always been here," or someone else says, "I believe the universe spontaneously erupted from nothing," or anything else, it's all belief. The only thing we have is what we can observe now. So I said that since we do observe everything reproducing after it's own kind, that I believe the biblical account that says that everything would reproduce after it's own kind. It just makes sense to me to believe that, since that's what we see. 
And of course, if you watch these "science" shows on tv, they don't go and say, "We don't know what happened" they're quite dogmatic about it. They speak as though it's a fact. I agree it would be much more honest to say, "We don't know what happened at the beginning, but here's what we believe and why." I could accept that. I think that type of answer should be acceptable to anyone, whether we agree or not. But for one to say, "This is the way it happened." and another to say, "No, this is the way it happened." etc, just leads to contention and arguing and even people making fun of each other. 
Why can't it be like this?
"I believe the universe came into being in this way, because of such and such." And substitute "this way" and "such and such" with the respective beliefs, and the ones who hear it say, "ok". 
I think it could be, or at least should be agreed that, no matter what belief anyone has about origins, it is in the end, a belief. And that's how I ended my post before.

---

. . . except these aren't a different species.  They're both dogs.

Yes, they are reproducing within their own kind.

---

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made?

If we'e talking about something grand such as the universe or the cosmos or whatever, then there's no warranted assumption that these entities had an intelligent maker, because we only observe one local universe (or the whole cosmos) and we have no idea if it did have an intelligent maker. Do you believe God had a maker as well? No, you don't. Similarly, I don't believe the universe had a maker.

Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker?

To be accurate, we are to assume that it did not have a maker because we lack the evidence to determine that it did.

Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is?

I guess so. The more universes, the better. Don't you agree this is, at least slightly, a better way to determine if this local universe had a maker than to blindly assume it did?

I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations.

But ... ?

But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific?

The postulation need not be scientific in order for one to make a logical postulation. Even so, one can use the discoveries made in science to make logical inferences about things and events we can't directly observe.

There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis.

Science isn't just about observations. Logical inferences can be made from scientific discoveries and be considered scientific as well (e.g., the inference that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, based on the observation that the universe has been expanding and other stuff).
 

Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief.

Or in terms of scientific findings and/or as a part of logical arguments.

However, the belief about the origin can and should be based on observation of the things that exist.

This almost sounds like this is ... scientific.

If a belief states that evolution took place in order for the things that exist today to have come to be the way they are now, then it would make sense that that belief and statement would be based on having observed such things occur.

Evolution is not a mere belief. It is a fact of life. And it is a process that still happens to this day because it is the natural thing to do.

If nothing has ever been observed to have evolved (species to species, not adaptation within kind), then how can it be a scientific statement?

I will leave it to those well-versed in biological evolution to provide examples of observing species-to-species evolution, but assuming we haven't yet, biological evolution is still a scientific fact because of the abundance of evidence in various fields of scientific inquiry that all converge onto the same conclusion: biological evolution being a thing. Creationism (on the other hand) cannot account for all the evidence that is explainable by evolution, at least not without resorting to ad hoc arguments.

Also, "kind" is not really a scientific word in the context of biological evolution. Unlike "species". So do be careful with the conflating.

It can still be a belief. Anything can be believed. But without observation, how can a belief be said to be scientific?

The problem with your argument is that evolution is based on clear scientific observations.

Origin has not been observed, so any statement about it is a belief.

Origin of biological evolution? Do you mean abiogenesis, which is to do with the origin of life but not with what happens after that? We have made some discoveries in science to show that abiogenesis is at least plausible. So no God needed.

Evolution has not been observed, so any statement about it is also a belief.

Not true that evolution has not been observed. What you mean is that macro-evolution has probably not been observed. But even then, evolution on the macro scale is a logical extension of the observations that have been made in this context.

God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it.

Now that, I agree with.

But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either?

Evolution is a scientific fact because of what I already pointed out above (so no need to repeat here). As for God creating the universe, well yeah, that's obviously not a scientific statement because we see nothing in our observations that must necessarily or likely point to such an entity.

Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe.

Duh. You don't need a Bible to know that animals reproduce after their own "kind".

Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed.

Uh, dogs evolving from wolves is a historical fact.

So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind.

I agree. Therefore, evolution. Since we've never observed God, either directly or indirectly.

But again, either way, it is just a belief.

Yes, belief in God is just a belief.

There is no evidence whatsoever of macro-evolution, which has to have occurred if evolution was the mechanism by which everything came to be here the way it is now. Now if this had been happening for so long a time, millions of years worth of evolution tasking place, why is there not a plethora of evidence of intermediate species? And I don't mean the occasional tooth or jaw bone, I mean piles of bones and other evidence. The type evidence we do see of the species we do know about. 
And yes we don't need a bible to tell us that everything reproduces after it's own kind. That is what we readily observe on a daily basis all over the world, in every aspect of life. We don't observe evolution occurring on a daily basis all over the world in any aspect of life. I didn't mean that we had to have the Bible tell us this. What I mean is, that the way it actually is, agrees with the way the Bible it would be. Evolution, however, requires that things reproduce after a different kind. So our observation agrees with the Bible, and doesn't agree with evolution.
Dogs coming from wolves is not evolution. They are the same kind. 
You said that belief in God is just a belief. Why can't you also say that belief in evolution is also just a belief? And there has been plenty of both direct and indirect evidence of God observed here on earth, even by unbelievers. Of course, if the unbelievers remain so, then they will explain it away by some other means. But that doesn't mean there has been no evidence. 
As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I have seen no such extraordinary evidence for evolution, so I see no need to believe in it, just as you have seen no extraordinary evidence for God, so you see no need to believe in Him.
As I said before, when it comes to origins, whatever any of us might believe, it is just a belief.

[bennyboy]

And of course, if you watch these "science" shows on tv, they don't go and say, "We don't know what happened" they're quite dogmatic about it. They speak as though it's a fact. I agree it would be much more honest to say, "We don't know what happened at the beginning, but here's what we believe and why." I could accept that. I think that type of answer should be acceptable to anyone, whether we agree or not. But for one to say, "This is the way it happened." and another to say, "No, this is the way it happened." etc, just leads to contention and arguing and even people making fun of each other. 

You are right to put "science" in quotes. No real scientist, so far as I know, claims to know what happened in the first moments after the Big Bang. But not knowing doesn't mean that any made-up answer is "okay until we know more."

The God idea, for example, adds an extra element-- sentience-- without justifying any need to do so.

[Dan Brooks]

Erm, evolution has been observed.....both in the lab and in nature. Off the top of my head, Lenski's work in the lab and Cichlids in African lakes.

Just a silly creationist trope to say otherwise.

So species to species evolution has been observed, both in the lab and in nature? I'd love to see the video of this! And if such evolution has been observed in such a short period of time, that is, in one lifetime, why does the earth have to be 4 and a half billion years old? It is said to be that old because it is required to be that old in order for all the various forms of life to have evolved here, no? But if species to species evolution can be observed in a lab experiment, then it must not take very long to occur, so then the earth wouldn't have to be that old. And also all the piles of evidence of this having occurred in the past should be readily available as well. I'd love to see this also. 
Or were you not talking about species to species evolution?

[JackRussell]

Speciation has been observed.

Gene fusion has been established.

Fossil evidence is there too.

There is no macro/micro evolution distinction, there is just evolution. The only different variable is time.

Creationists have a lack of understanding of deep time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Creationists never bother to read and learn though.