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.
I get a rolleyes myself every time I hear the old apologetic that unknowns and unexplaineds are somehow a debunker of everything that science has demonstrated about the world works, and that there is no demonstrable spoor of a god in it.
That is the 'materialist default' as they say and the burden of proof is on the believer to prove (to some credible degree) there is a god. Gaps in the unexplained is merely unexplained. It is not evidence for God.
I don't know the context of that Cronin quote (1) and I am rather dubious about his idea that a (bio) chemical origin of life can't explain the origins. But even a suggestion that some other element must be required to make the process work does not make it a god, let alone the god of a particular religion. You are banging a dead donkey here.
We've read it
And the burden of proof has been on you Creationists ever since Darwin close the 'Creation' gap. Now you are in denial and the gaps in the evolutionary default explanation are not something on which the explanation hands for survival. But they are the lurking places for the remnants of the Goddunnit -faith -claim.
(1) I had a bit of a look and Rationalwiki said this: "as of 2011, Lee Cronin at the University of Glasgow is trying to start an evolutionary process in polyoxometalate-based "cells"."
Evolutionary. It looks as though your Creationist source has quotemined someone (perhaps) suggesting that some other way of handling the chemicals is the answer, and giving their own dishonest Creationist spin on it.
I don't think that everyone has a burden of proof to prove everything they post. But then again, it depends on the manner in which they post things. In the following, these are royal you's in all cases here).
If you say that, "I believe that Seth lived to be 105 and begat Enos", I'll say, "Okay. Who really cares. Big deal".
But if you say, "It's a fact that Seth lived to be 105 and begat Enos", then I'll start objecting. And it isn't so much that I care about Seth or Enos, it's that I care about what is stated as facts (can we say current events?).
If you think that what's in the bible is fact simply because it's in a favorite book of yours, then I have no further burden of proof than to say that something is fact simply because it's in a favorite book of mine.
"But the bible is a holy book!" But the Koran is a holy book. The Tipitaka and Dhammapada are holy books. The Vedas are (I guess) a holy book. There's a line in "Inherit The Wind" that goes: "The bible is a book. It's a good book. But it's not the only book". If you're going to rely on the bible for your facts, than someone else has just as much right to rely on the book "Origin Of Species" for their facts.
And some of you are critical of Darwin's hypothesis (for example) because over time the theory of evolution has been modified (by the way, that's the way science works). More modern texts differ significantly from Darwin's writings. And you'll pick at those differences. Well, there was a time when an awfully lot of christians believed the Adam & Eve story to be absolute fact, while now many believe it is a story to make a point. Same with the great flood. Same with many other things in the bible.
I've said before, and I will say again: There's nothing wrong with faith, until a person doesn't know the difference between faith and fact. When that happens, those people become dangerous.
I take it that was addressed to the believers rather than to me. That said, I shall post a tribute to the best flight of my life, all long gone (as will this post, I suspect, pretty damn' quick ) , never, I fear, to return.
The unknown is a gap for BOTH the God and the "No God" presumptions.
No, if there's no evidence something exists it's not a scientifically credible explanation. Since there's no evidence of god it's not scientifically credible. Since materialism provides a testable framework for understanding reality it is scientifically credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
I am not appealing to any gaps. It was a sincere question...what powers the electrical force that powers life?
It's unclear what you're asking. Your question is sort of like asking, 'What powers the gasoline that powers your car?'. Gas itself is a component of a car's propulsion system. Electricity exists and is a component of life. That's what we know. Your question seems redundant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
For those that are hoping there are no Higher Power(s) anything that does not tow the materialistic paradigm line can appear to appeal to the God of the gaps.
You're avoiding the issue entirely: There's no evidence of god.
Since I don't know what the implications of an entirely hypothetical god are I don't care if it exists or not. It's not a question of hope but of evidence. While I hope my net worth is $10 million, evidence it's significant less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I get a small smile every time I here that old argument of God of the gaps from you guys because you miss the irony that you do what you accuse the Christian of doing. You fill in the gaps with materialism, you do not know the answers but you know it is materialism.
Again, we can only observe and detect physical-material things. If you or anyone else can show evidence immaterial things or an immaterial realm exists I'll accept it as a plausible explanation. Until then it's at best speculative and fantastical at worst.
Understand? All we're asking for is evidence. So far all you're arguing is essentially, 'If something is unknown or can't be explained maybe god is the explanation.' Do you understand why this is so scientifically unconvincing?
Can you believe, Harry, that this bod lurked in AA disguised as an atheist for years before he was rumbled? Perhaps you would care to elucidate the Greek and the meaning and usage of the term 'hypocrite' in the NT.
Very good but the logical default is a Mechanical explanation is the default one, not 'Witches have put a spell on it'. We don't do that since the 17th century and Salem. We take the way we know things work as the default, not myths and superstition. Which is what Theist -think is and is why they consistently fail to understand the materialist (methodological/mechanical materialism) default, invert the burden of proof, misuse, misrepresent and misunderstand the 'gaps for god/unknowns' fallacy and in short is why all theist apologetics is screwed as illogical, irrational and unsound right from the starter's gun and they can never see it, since they believe that an Intelligent Creator (name you own) is the default theory, which it hasn't been since Darwin, who thoroughly deserves his own day and place of honour in the Nat. Hist museum.
So I should stop praying my car will start when the engine doesn't seem wanting to turn over?
I don't think that everyone has a burden of proof to prove everything they post. But then again, it depends on the manner in which they post things. In the following, these are royal you's in all cases here).
If you say that, "I believe that Seth lived to be 105 and begat Enos", I'll say, "Okay. Who really cares. Big deal".
But if you say, "It's a fact that Seth lived to be 105 and begat Enos", then I'll start objecting. And it isn't so much that I care about Seth or Enos, it's that I care about what is stated as facts (can we say current events?).
If you think that what's in the bible is fact simply because it's in a favorite book of yours, then I have no further burden of proof than to say that something is fact simply because it's in a favorite book of mine.
"But the bible is a holy book!" But the Koran is a holy book. The Tipitaka and Dhammapada are holy books. The Vedas are (I guess) a holy book. There's a line in "Inherit The Wind" that goes: "The bible is a book. It's a good book. But it's not the only book". If you're going to rely on the bible for your facts, than someone else has just as much right to rely on the book "Origin Of Species" for their facts.
And some of you are critical of Darwin's hypothesis (for example) because over time the theory of evolution has been modified (by the way, that's the way science works). More modern texts differ significantly from Darwin's writings. And you'll pick at those differences. Well, there was a time when an awfully lot of christians believed the Adam & Eve story to be absolute fact, while now many believe it is a story to make a point. Same with the great flood. Same with many other things in the bible.
I've said before, and I will say again: There's nothing wrong with faith, until a person doesn't know the difference between faith and fact. When that happens, those people become dangerous.
If there is anything well proven in this forum it's that no one has a burden of proof to prove anything...
When is it that a person of faith doesn't confuse faith and fact?
If there is anything well proven in this forum it's that no one has a burden of proof to prove anything...
When is it that a person of faith doesn't confuse faith and fact?
Good questions:
As I outlined, from my perspective there is no burden of proof in regard to "I believe", but there is when one says, "It's a fact that.."
And, I think there becomes a huge burden of proof if you're going to go out and try to convince other to believe in the same religion you do. This is very different than when my neighbor says she belong to a particular church. Okay. No problem. But if she says, "And you should belong to it, too"...well, burden of proof enters the equation.
I think there's a distinct difference between faith and fact. However, many individuals may have trouble reconciling the difference. More than once in my life I have heard friends of mine who had terminal cancer say that they had absolute faith that god would save them from the cancer. I didn't say anything. But once they died it would have been nice to ask, "So what happened?" Or faith in some other aspect of life, and then when it doesn't happen there's always an excuse. I think it's sad.
So I should stop praying my car will start when the engine doesn't seem wanting to turn over?
You ask a bit much I think...
Pray all you wish, and more power to your arm, but remember to call a mechanic while you're at it. When she's fixed it, you can give the credit to God for giving her the brains to do it.
As I outlined, from my perspective there is no burden of proof in regard to "I believe", but there is when one says, "It's a fact that.."
And, I think there becomes a huge burden of proof if you're going to go out and try to convince other to believe in the same religion you do. This is very different than when my neighbor says she belong to a particular church. Okay. No problem. But if she says, "And you should belong to it, too"...well, burden of proof enters the equation.
I think there's a distinct difference between faith and fact. However, many individuals may have trouble reconciling the difference. More than once in my life I have heard friends of mine who had terminal cancer say that they had absolute faith that god would save them from the cancer. I didn't say anything. But once they died it would have been nice to ask, "So what happened?" Or faith in some other aspect of life, and then when it doesn't happen there's always an excuse. I think it's sad.
What about the times when their faith saved them? The proof it did or how it did is for them to judge, not anyone else. Death is a certainty. That would be a cheap shot.
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.
) , never, I fear, to return.
but the logical default is a Mechanical explanation is the default one, not 'Witches have put a spell on it'. We don't do that since the 17th century and Salem. We take the way we know things work as the default, not myths and superstition. Which is what Theist -think is and is why they consistently fail to understand the materialist (methodological/mechanical materialism) default, invert the burden of proof, misuse, misrepresent and misunderstand the 'gaps for god/unknowns' fallacy and in short is why all theist apologetics is screwed as illogical, irrational and unsound right from the starter's gun and they can never see it, since they believe that an Intelligent Creator (name you own) is the default theory, which it hasn't been since Darwin, who thoroughly deserves his own day and place of honour in the Nat. Hist museum.