I noticed. No worries.
You made me chuckle with that! I appreciate the integrity.
I honestly donât know. We all have to sort out what we think exists ultimately, if anything, and while I think God exists I have no idea why he made life. All Iâm saying is, âHere we are on a planet of living things, and that makes no sense to me without divine intervention.â
Still smiling at that! I think everyone has âfaithâ that what they believe is correct. You have faith in âno godâ and you have your reasons. Humanly speaking, I think we are all pretty much the same there.
You just admitted you have no reason for your belief that God totally would create a universe with life in it. So no, we donât have the same sort of âfaithâ. The reason I donât believe what you do is that I see no good reason for it. And since you admitted you have none, we are not the same. Youâre jumping to conclusions, Iâm not.
Youâre the one with a religious faith based on nothing. Iâm not.
I donât believe anything about why the universe is the way it is. I just say I donât know. Because I donât. Like you, I donât know. But unlike you, I just say that instead of âjust believing in somethingâ.
If you show me a jar I canât see inside and you tell me thereâs marbles inside them, I canât from that alone tell what color they are. If you ask me I donât say âI have a faith that they have no colorâ. I say âI donât know what color they areâ. Youâre the one saying âI admit I have nothing to base this on but I think theyâre all yellowâ.
We are not the same.
5 Likes
So youâre saying, in a thread about the scientific evidence for god, that you see no evidential support for god from that subject? Probably shouldnât have mentioned it then. Maybe make a new thread for your opinions?
1 Like
This is not the claim he made. You are confused by @Rumraket why did God do it straw man. Marty only claimed that he would not expect life without the existence of God. This may have nothing to do with understanding why God did it. It may be something as complex as life is unlikely without an intelligent creator behind it.
Itâs like asking why Steve Jobs created apple computer. This answer is not going to be precise if you have never met Steve however the fact he (along with Steve Wozniak) created apple is a well accepted fact.
1 Like
On the basis of what evidence?
1 Like
Itâs a question, not a straw man. LOL
2 Likes
You are twisting my words for your purposes. I stated that I have no belief in a universe that creates life on itâs own. You do. Thatâs your faith. My claim is limited to what I think the universe would look like if there was no God. That was the question.
Youâre right! You are unaware of your faith.
Origins of life would be enough. Show me the pathway on early earth to the first cell.
Itâs unfortunate that my comment in response to a simple question is getting responses so dogmatic and aggressive. Canât we just accept that intelligent, reasonable people disagree, and try to dialog?
2 Likes
A literal argument from ignorance. Funny.
1 Like
Apparently not 
Wow! Canât do what I ask, so ridicules me. Not funny.
1 Like
This would be mistaken as life is evidence. You are confusing evidence with opinion as the universe is filled with evidence to be interpreted. You are free to argue that his reasoning is not supported by the evidence but this will be very challenging if you argue in good faith.
Life on earth and the vast amount of life forms is evidence of some cause. God is certainly a possible explanation and may indeed be the most parsimonious
This is a logical fallacy as you determine yourself the judge of truth of his argument you also claim to know his intent which you donâtâŚ
Marty is being very straight forward in asking for dialog as you only have made feeble attempts to shut down the dialog.
Thatâs a claim. And a wrong one, at that.
No, thatâs what Marty did when he gave his opinion instead of evidence.
Itâs easy to argue that someoneâs position isnât supported by the evidence when they provide no evidence.
If you think the absence of a pathway for the origins of life is evidence for God, you are making an argument from ignorance.
If your response to a request for evidence is to give an argument from ignorance, you are being dishonest and unreasonable.
If you complain about being âridiculedâ when that dishonesty is noted rather than provide actual evidence or admit the mistake, youâre the one shutting down the conversation.
4 Likes
Your whole world view is based on denying the other side of the argument has evidence. If you allow evidence atheism falls apart.
Life is evidence. This is undisputed as science is trying to explain its origin.
This is a bald assertion without any reasoning. To say life is not evidence is nonsense as science is continually examining this evidenceâŚ
I think the existence of a complicated organism, more complicated then anything man has built is evidence that intelligence is fundamental to the universe. Many claim that intelligence cause derived from evidence and inductive reasoning is God.
Your assertion of dishonesty shows weakness in your position that is only based on a false assertion that evidence is not evidence.
Well no, you did not state that. You stated:
IMO there wouldnât be living things.
Later you stated:
Itâs just my opinion that the existence of life like us in this universe required divine intervention. If there wasnât a God, there wouldnât be humans.
So here youâre saying that if there was no God there wouldnât, would-not, be life in the universe. And of course you admitted itâs just your opinion. Disregarding that this is a claim about what the world would be like without God, I asked you to explain why you think that there would be life in a universe with God.
Why would there be in a universe created by a God?
You appear to have had no answer to that. No reason for your beliefs. None for your belief about what the universe would be like without God(other than your own ignorance of course), and none for your belief for what the universe would be like if a God had created it.
I donât have any âfaithâ in what the universe would be like with or without God. But I do have evidence that lifeâs origins owes to a physical and chemical process governed by the laws of physics. Like everything else in the universe. Thatâs not faith, thatâs a belief based on evidence.
No itâs clearly both. You have opinions on what the universe would be like with God, and opinions of what it would be like without God.
Why should anyone do that? I mean youâve already conceded your current opinion isnât based on anything, so why would you demand to be âshownâ something from others you actually donât care about when it comes down to it?
No, we canât accept a blatant untruth. Your position is neither intelligent nor reasonable. And you can dismiss that answer as dogmatic and aggressive all you like, that wonât make it be that.
We can continue to dialogue, but you will have to provide better arguments and justifications for your statements about what other people believe. And there will never come a future where I will refrain from pointing out that you have double standards. Dogmatic and aggressive as I am.
2 Likes
Your whole world view is based on denying the other side of the argument has evidence. If you allow evidence Christianity falls apart.
You see how silly that sounds?
If science is trying to explain lifeâs origin, then it is impossible to say what life is evidence of. Youâve contradicted yourself, you just understand what âevidenceâ is so poorly you didnât realize it.
Life is evidence of life. It is not, and could not be, evidence of a god.
No, it is a statement of fact. It is simply true that a position based on no evidence can be dismissed. You might mean to have responded to a different comment, but thatâs your fault not mine.
Youâre entitled to think whatever you want. But if you present your baseless opinions as fact or evidence, theyâre going to be dismissed.
4 Likes
I donât deny that science has evidence to examine. Like @Rumraket you making things up and misrepresenting others arguments.
An assertion. Again no one has explained it and its contents without invoking intelligent cause. There are millions of origin events that are not explained by the known laws of physics and chemistry. The problem is getting worse as we gain knowledge of the cell and the differences in species biochemistry.
Life is also evidence of an extraordinary cause. You seems you deny inductive reasoning is part of science.
Your reasoning is circular and based on the assumption that life is not evidence of fundamental intelligence behind the universe. Of course it is and highlighted by the fact that you can not explain it through the current laws of nature. Your making a science of the gaps argument
You dismissed my claim only by assertion that evidence of life is not evidence of God. .At this point I have made a claim from evidence and inductive reasoning. You have simply made a series of assertions
If you read Richard Dawkins arguments against the existence of God you will see his reasoning is also circular. âGod is just too big a conceptâ. My argument is that a universe with observers is also a big concept and requires a big explanation.
Another high-IQ post from Bill. Ahem.
1 Like
FWIW, I think it would be more correctly ânaturalism of the gapsâ or scientism.
In any case @colewd, thank you for your attempts to support and clarify, but that seems be a futile attempt here with some people. The standard approach of those with an agenda is to accuse the others of being ignorant, stupid, or a scoundrel, to twist words and require others to defend a straw man. I have now seen all of these.
But there is no point in discussing with those who have declared themselves arbiters of all truth, enforcers of the orthodoxy, and heroes for the cause. I will let the readers decide based on what has been said thus far.
@faded_glory I hope you find something helpful or interesting in my answer above. Feel free to engage with it.
@rumraket and @crisprcas9 I would appreciate it if you would stop responding to my posts. Thank you.
1 Like
What an absurd statement. Intelligent Design is nothing more than assertion all the way down. It explains nothing.
Name three of these âmillions of origin eventsâ with specificity, and demonstrate why the are unambiguously inexplicable âby the known laws of physics and chemistryâ. Your statement appears to be nothing more than empty rhetoric, untethered to any actual scientific research.
2 Likes