Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Premise: we have seen no evidence of a divine being
Conclusion: there is no divine being
I don't think this argument looks at the issue completely. What if there is a divine being(s) which has not interacted with the physical world?
What if we have always assumed a physical answer for the answers to our hypothesis. For instance, the origin of life from chemicals. It is highly improbable, though possibly possible that chemicals do combine to make RNA, which makes life blob things. However, it could be that DNA and/or RNA came from a source outside the earth. This question, along with the psychedelic question bring into question the premise that there is no evidence of interaction with our world from things that are not physically in our world.
Another question, has evolution demonstrated itself to be random?
To me, the answers of creation lie in metaphysical arguments. For instance, could god have created the earth 6000 years ago? He could have if he also did everything else he said he did and will do in the bible. Since I believe god did not do everything in the bible, neither do I believe that god did what he said regarding creation.
In the same respect, if you believe that there is no god, then it will follow that you believe life originated from random, rather than guided process
So many what ifs and is merely conjecture based on nothing. You are simply trying to inject godunnit in gaps which you perceive exist.
This is the problem when you try and equate creationism to the well evidenced BBT, abiogenesis and evolution. For everything to have happened in 6000 years, you are forced to deny all evidence to the contrary. You have to deny all evidence pertaining to an expanding universe, you have to ignore the fossil record. 4.7 billion years is ample time for life to form from the basic amino acids to what we have today.
When the bible was written, none of these folk were savvy to what we have at our disposal today concerning the SM. By retroactively applying the SM to biblical claims, these all fail miserably.
Your premise of a guided process is nothing other than theistic evolution and is not even a science. On its own, it has no merit w/o the real evidence scientific research has brought us. It adds ZERO to furthering the research and simply sits in the wings looking for gaps for god. It is a pseudo science and was not even invented till DNA was discovered. The earliest postulations simply stated that DNA was too complex to be random chance and there must be a designer behind it all. Nothing much has changed since then.
The argument for divine or non-divine creation of initial life is a metaphysical one, not a physical one, and should be done in the philosophy room and not the science room.
While there is certainly a temptation to compartmentalize science and religion to prevent one from interacting with another, that is simply not possible.
The fact is that science is liable to come up with viable, empiracally proven answers within the next 50 to 100 years (and quite possibly even sooner). Therefore, if scientists are able to show precisely how life originated or just what, exactly, "banged" during the Big Bang (or that something really can come from nothing), religion has already been touched by science.
I think most of us (even the religious) can agree that, once these answers are made public, religion will do its best to refute them - most likely with a barrage of junk science and apologetic mayhem - but like with all other religious concepts debunked by science, opposition to science will fade over time.
However, the point is that science cannot put forth an explanation that explains the origin of life and the universe without stepping on religion's toes. Any such explanation will be in direct contravention of Genesis 1:1 and the whole Adam and Eve story.
I've always said that the number of divine miracles and punishments seen in the world is inversely proportional to our scientific knowledge. In other words, the more we know and understand about our physical world, fewer events can be attributed to supernatural and mystical causes. The further back in time one looks, the more so-called "miracles" seem to have occurred, and there's a logical reason for that which I just described.
IF science reveals answers to our origins, there will be one less "miracle" on the table for believers to work with, namely God simply conjuring the universe into existence then making Adam out of a pile of dirt. This, in my opinion, is the quintessential reason why religion fights vein-poppingly hard to limit the exposure of children to the Big Bang and evolution and why believers want teachers to discuss intelligent design side-by-side with actual science. I suppose in the latter case, religion is hoping for a "credibility by association" phenomenon; if magical explanations are mentioned along with scientific explanations, somehow the credibility of science will rub off onto the non-scientific magical explanations.
So no, you can't keep science and religion separated by a wall of philosophy. Actual science WILL come into play in this debate sooner or later. In fact, it already has.
I don't think this argument looks at the issue completely. What if there is a divine being(s) which has not interacted with the physical world?
"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?" -- Carl Sagan, A Demon-Haunted World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
However, it could be that DNA and/or RNA came from a source outside the earth.
Well, there is always the theory of transpermia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
Another question, has evolution demonstrated itself to be random?
No. Evolution is neither random or guided in the same way that the flow of water is neither random since it always finds the path of least resistance or guided since no one postulates that an intelligence is steering the flow every step of the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
To me, the answers of creation lie in metaphysical arguments.
See my previous post as to why this question cannot remain in the metaphysical or philosophical realm forever.
Only because you have assigned all the evidence to your No God Nature. It is disingenuous, dishonest, and deceptive. It pretends that there is a scientific basis for excluding God from consideration when there is none.
It is you that is assigning god labels to nature. There is no scientific basis for excluding god as all propositions for gods are and belong in the trash bin of archaic thinking.
The best anyone could say in HS is that some people believe there is a god behind this and leave it at that. How would you proceed to provide evidence for this god? You cannot as it is ALL based on conjecture.
Quote:
By pretending that it is scientific to assume there is No God . . . you are teaching atheism. It implicitly pretends that there is a scientific basis for doing so. There is not.
No one has said that, you are connecting imaginary dots. Atheism is a conclusion not a belief it cannot be taught.
Quote:
The issue in this discussion is that it has no place in a science curriculum until there is scientific evidence for the assumed low probability of God. I have heard the "not one shred of evidence for God crap" repeatedly
There is no evidence for any god. Religion should be taught in mythology classes and I am sure if it covered many of the topics discussed here, folk would conclude atheism is the only rational conclusion. I am all for that but this is NOT what theists want do they?
Quote:
. . . so where is the evidence on which your low to non-existent probability of God is based . . . scientifically?
Shifting the burden of proof is a lame deflection all theists use, you are no different when sparring with someone that can call you on your twaddle.
Quote:
Wrong. I not arguing for including God ("ruling God IN") any equation. I am simply arguing that God cannot be ruled OUT of any equation . . . as is routinely done in science classes.
How? You say this but provide not one example. I clearly made my argument by way of what I was exposed to and have yet to see anything similar from you.
Quote:
I am not asking for teaching God. I am asking for NOT teaching "No God" . . . a very different proposition.I agree . . . but that also means no atheistic input . . . if we are being objective and honest. Agree. But atheism in any form does not belong in public schools nor in government either. The best any atheist can come up with is " I don't see any God behind this" and cannot present any substance after that statement that will support their low probability assumption . . . given what we know about the Godly attributes of our reality itself.
You really are floundering here mate. How can you ask for not "not including god" by any other way but to include injecting god beliefs?
I will say it again, you cannot teach atheism and it is not the defacto stance by excluding any creation aspects in a science class. Adding a philosophical class detracts from the small amount of time that exists for k12 students to learn stuff that they need.
In my GCE education system, bible studies was an elective subject and there were no teachers to teach it. These were extra mural classes that took place after normal school hours and probably run by some clergy. It would appear on your certificate if you passed it but it added zero value to anyone having aspirations outside of entering the priesthood. You still had to have the math and sciences and languages to get certified.
These are the five subjects you had to pass to get your certificate.
The other 3 subjects in my case were Technical Drawing, Woodwork and Metalwork. There were really very few free periods in the curriculum and even these you were sat in a class where you could start in on your homework assignments. That was the 70s and since then, so much more pertinent stuff has come about with the advent of computers and subjects not heard of.
Where the hell is there any time for religious studies? After HS, college or university subjects are elective by way of the discipline entered into. No one is forbidding religious or philosophical studies in these cases should they be part of a elective vocation.
Let's clarify: Absence of physical (and therefore scientific) evidence or causation does not imply metaphysical (and therefore religious) evidence or causation. Likewise, physical evidence or causation does not imply that there is no metaphysical role or motive.
Therefore, to proclaim either of the two above in an objective class such as science class is unjust.
All evolution has to say is that there is probable physical evidence for the causation of life's advances on the planet. Nothing more, nothing less.
Only because you have assigned all the evidence to your No God Nature.
And the evidence for God is what, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It pretends that there is a scientific basis for excluding God from consideration when there is none.
There is also no scientific basis to exclude fairies, a horde of drunk cats, or Darth Vader from consideration, either, but you won't hear anyone claiming that these should be serious contenders for who or what created life. I've been over this assertion hundreds of times: Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean we have to accept the possibility that it does exist. In fact, this is how we live our daily lives. As I said before, imagine an existence in which every "I don't know" means every possibility in an infinite sea of possibilties becomes as likely an explanation as any other.
The only reason why God is given so much consideration as a possible answer is due to cultural bias toward God-worship and religion-joining. What's worse is that which God is up for consideration is dependent almost exclusively upon the geographical location in which one was born thus all but negating any so-called "truths" that any God or religion tries to offer us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
By pretending that it is scientific to assume there is No God . . . you are teaching atheism.
What you seem to be saying here is that evolution should not be taught unless God is mentioned or somehow inserted into the evolutionary paradigm. Keep in mind that refusing to bring God into a lesson about evolution is not the same thing as denying God's existence. In other words, remaining silent about God is not teaching atheism.
To the best of my knowledge, teachers are no more allowed to stand in front of the class and declare "There is no God!" any more than they can stand there and declare the opposite. I think the poster who said you were arguing with a strawman was quite correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It implicitly pretends that there is a scientific basis for doing so.
Are you implying that there is scientific evidence for the existence of God? Because if you have some, I'd start packing your bags for Norway. Your Nobel Prize awaits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
so where is the evidence on which your low to non-existent probability of God is based . . . scientifically?
Hmm, well ... in what other facet of your life do you accept supernatural and magical explanations as being equally valid as scientific ones? What other questions on other subjects do you accept supernatural and magical answers for? While yes, I do not know you, per se, I'm going to hazard a guess and say NONE. Only in conjunction with god-belief and fanciful religious notions do people suddenly begin to entertain paranormal and mystical explanations for events they otherwise would have attributed to science. In fact, this is a major reason why science was allowed to thrive at all in a world that was once controlled and dominated by religion. If we believed that every event in our lives, every question we asked - big or small - was governed by gods and magic, there never would have been a need for science.
So you ask, "Where is the evidence on which your low to non-existent probability of God is based," and I say that humanity has had ~100,000 years to prove that a religious or paranormal explanation is the correct one and, thus far, it has failed to do so. Therefore, it is highly improbable that evolution and the Big Bang will suddenly yield up a God. Furthermore, even today's Christians accept without question many scientific principles that were once attributed to gods and magic which is proof positive that science almost invariably wins the day. Now, we can debate whether there is an afterlife, whether a god saved someone from certain death, and whether the supernatural is at play regarding other unanswerable questions. But life's origins and the formation of the universe are, in my opinion, answerable and will be answered. If not, then science is wasting a lot of time and money in a fruitless endeavor; they may as well hang-up their lab coats and tell everyone to accept God as the first cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am simply arguing that God cannot be ruled OUT of any equation
If an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent God using magic to "speak" the universe into existence can't be ruled out. Please explain to me what exactly CAN be ruled out? Anything? Fairies? Darth Vader? Anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am not asking for teaching God. I am asking for NOT teaching "No God" . . . a very different proposition.
What you're essentially asking for is that children only hear one side of the argument - intelligent design and creationism. Because the churches, private schools, and home schooling parents aren't going to stop preaching that "God did it." So if science also has to teach that God is a viable explanation or stop teaching science altogether (the only two choices you present), religion and creationism inevitably wins out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
but that also means no atheistic input
This is where the strawman comes to the fore. I don't believe high school teachers are telling kids there is no God. Believe me, if any teacher said that, it would be all over the news and conservatives would want that teacher's head on a platter -- at least figuratively. For now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But atheism in any form does not belong in public schools nor in government either.
That's impossible, at least according to the logic you've been using. Merely not mentioning God or giving credence to God or ensuring that God somehow has a finger in every pie, to you at least, is considered "atheism." Thus if a science teacher doesn't tell the class that God is an equally viable answer, if government doesn't accept that God may be the cause of, say, the government shutdown, it is atheism. So by telling people there can be no atheism, you are inadvertantly(?) pushing theism. There are only two sides to this coin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The best any atheist can come up with is " I don't see any God behind this" and cannot present any substance after that statement that will support their low probability assumption
I'm still waiting for you to explain why we should accept God as a reasonable answer ... but not fairies or microscopic pink fluffy kittens or a sentient pair of bedroom slippers or that teapot orbiting Jupiter. Sounds silly, right? Well, trust me, these examples are no more silly or improbable than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supernatural being using magic - a sort of Gandalf or Merlin figure on steroids casting spells to create universes and humans out of ribs and dirt. To the ears of a non-believer, the god hypothesis is no less bizarre than assuming Darth Vader did it. The problem is that religion and gods are so embedded into the human condition, the human psyche, the human culture, that for most it is impossible to remove it no matter how illogical it all is.
Well, you guys still haven't answered my psychedelic question. It is reasonable to assume that most religions have their roots in someone's description of an altered state of conscious. In these psychedelically altered states of conscious, people by and large the same or similar beings and things. Now, where do these universal visions come from? Is it an outside entity communicating them? If so, then there is a metaphysical realm. If they are universal symbols to humans inside the mind, where did we get them from? Well, it would have to come from DNA. And how are these universal symbols evolutionary advantageous?
Only because you have assigned all the evidence to your No God Nature. It is disingenuous, dishonest, and deceptive. It pretends that there is a scientific basis for excluding God from consideration when there is none. By pretending that it is scientific to assume there is No God . . . you are teaching atheism. It implicitly pretends that there is a scientific basis for doing so. There is not.
You need simply read ANY of rifle's posts on this board to refute that notion. It is no straw man. It is a stridently affirmed position. That is a separate issue. The issue in this discussion is that it has no place in a science curriculum until there is scientific evidence for the assumed low probability of God. I have heard the "not one shred of evidence for God crap" repeatedly . . . so where is the evidence on which your low to non-existent probability of God is based . . . scientifically?
Wrong. I not arguing for including God ("ruling God IN") any equation. I am simply arguing that God cannot be ruled OUT of any equation . . . as is routinely done in science classes.
I am not asking for teaching God. I am asking for NOT teaching "No God" . . . a very different proposition.I agree . . . but that also means no atheistic input . . . if we are being objective and honest. Agree. But atheism in any form does not belong in public schools nor in government either. The best any atheist can come up with is " I don't see any God behind this" and cannot present any substance after that statement that will support their low probability assumption . . . given what we know about the Godly attributes of our reality itself.
You repeatedly assert this nonsense . . . so I can only assume you have not read or do not understand the field theories of consciousness. They alone constitute "evidence or reason to believe" that the universal field COULD BE a consciousness field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
It is you that is assigning god labels to nature. There is no scientific basis for excluding god as all propositions for gods are and belong in the trash bin of archaic thinking.
Science began investigating God . . . which at that time was our reality. The "Nature" "Universe" Multi-verse" labels have been created by science specifically to exclude God and avoid the religious persecution it was once under.
Quote:
The best anyone could say in HS is that some people believe there is a god behind this and leave it at that. How would you proceed to provide evidence for this god? You cannot as it is ALL based on conjecture.
The idea of a generic God as the basis for our entire reality is not archaic . . . just out of favor with scientists because of the taint of religious persecution.
Quote:
No one has said that, you are connecting imaginary dots. Atheism is a conclusion not a belief it cannot be taught.
But it is taught indirectly and by implication routinely in science classes on evolution . . . but it should not be. Since randomness and emergence are euphemisms for our ignorance of causal chains . . . they should not be presented as scientific explanations of anything . . . as they currently are. God is an equally valid explanation and has as much actual knowledge behind it.
Quote:
There is no evidence for any god.
There you go again . . . assertion without justification. Why is our entire reality NOT God?
Quote:
Religion should be taught in mythology classes and I am sure if it covered many of the topics discussed here, folk would conclude atheism is the only rational conclusion. I am all for that but this is NOT what theists want do they?
Switching the topic to religion is sidestepping the issue of the existence of God. Religions are sets of BELIEFS ABOUT God, period. They stand or fall on their own merits. The existence of God is a separate matter and it IS amenable to science . . . given the Godly things we already know about our reality. Atheists refuse to deal with the existence issue separately because they prefer to castigate and ridicule the many absurd beliefs ABOUT God in religions . . . such as the Omni's, supernatural and magical thinking, miracles, etc. etc. These are NOT amenable to science and are rightly excluded. BUT the existence of God, generically, cannot be ruled out scientifically because of what we know and don't know about our reality. Too much of what we know is God-like, period.
Quote:
Shifting the burden of proof is a lame deflection all theists use, you are no different when sparring with someone that can call you on your twaddle.
There is no shifting of the burden involved. Science cannot simply assert that there is a low to no probability of the existence of God without providing the basis on which those probabilities were calculated. No one has shown me those calculations.
Quote:
You really are floundering here mate. How can you ask for not "not including god" by any other way but to include injecting god beliefs?
I will say it again, you cannot teach atheism and it is not the defacto stance by excluding any creation aspects in a science class.
Preposterous. It simply requires absolute honesty and not injecting atheist preferences into the discussions. Whenever an aspect cannot actually be explained without using euphemisms for ignorance about what is observed . . . it should explicitly be left unexplained. Our ability to mathematically model the ignorance or uncertainty in our observations are useful and valuable. But they should NOT be presented as explanations of them. Mathematically modeled ignorance should not be presented as scientific fact or understanding. As to your rant about adding religion to curricula . . . that is not remotely part of what I am advocating . . . just removing anti-God inferences and implications as if they were scientific facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
And the evidence for God is what, exactly?
::Sigh:: Start here and then we can perhaps have a more focused discussion:
To give you some context. There is no such thing as supernatural or magic . . .only what is currently not understood. Religious BELIEFS ABOUT God have nothing to do with the issue of the existence of God . . . which is a scientific question based entirely on the attributes of our reality itself and the reasonableness of characterizing them as those of God. The attributes of our reality are known factual aspects discerned by science, unlike those of fairies, and any of your other imaginary nonsense.
Yes, sans . . . again and again and again. I reiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I will not stay silent about the unsupportable pretense that a No God position is scientific and justified in a science class. It is NOT! It has no more place in a science class . . . either implicitly or explicitly . . . than a God position. You cannot capitalize on ignorance as the basis for promoting your personal atheism, period!
You want the right to slip No God in the back door. Neither God NOR No God has a place in a science class, period!I am dismayed by the supreme lack of scientific objectivity . . . given it is so loudly proclaimed and praised by atheists. There is no basis in our ignorance to produce probabilities to substantiate your personal preference for No God. Pretending that there is . . . is not just bad science . . . it is completely dishonest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
