Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
No it's not. In addition, since then we discovered that aminoacids exist outside of earth. It'd be good if you wouldn't restrict your understanding and knowledge of abiogenesis to one experiment made in the 50's.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562107
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
No-one should make the claim that aliens do exist, its a matter of probability. The observable universe is absolutely enormous.
With that said, yes, we haven't yet determined the mechanism by which life arises, so we don't have a good estimate of probability.
Apparently there's an enormous amount of research showing that abiogenesis is wrong or something. BRB, pubmed search.
I know for sure Santa claus is a man made person. Heck he even pops up on a supposed religious holiday. And we can trace the date the name first popped up to 1773
Let me clarify my position. I for one do not know for certain if alien life exists. But a claim that aliens do exist, is not an example of faith, it is actually grounded in observational evidence. WE are that observational evidence which we operate from and the observational evidence of the scale of the universe.
Faith is held in the absence of any proof. WE are proof of life in the universe.
Now, if you would do me the courtesy of answering a question.
What is your stance on the existence of leprechauns.
It does not require faith to believe in the unproven but statistically nearly certain as opposed to that which has no precedents in existence, such as a faith in god.
Saty is just been an overly pedantic at this point. Pretty much making the point about 'knowing' and 'uncertainty', in a very round about, antagonistic and unhelpful manner.
We get it dude - you don't like people claiming they know something when they're actually just relatively confident that it *could* be possibly true/false/whatever.
See. This is me giving argumentative charity. Because to take the stuff he's been arguing at face value, would indicate that he only subscribes to the idea of a tri-tone belief system i.e. 'you know that it's true', 'you know that it's false' or 'you don't know.'
While technically accurate in a manner similar to; There is only white, black and other colours - it doesn't do a very good job of capturing the essence of how people go about conveying ideas and beliefs - it's a rigid over-simplification to the benefit of few, if any.
That is not entirely true.
Sketpicism means assesing the different possibilities, and taking position.
Read this article, it touches upon the question.
I wonder if there is a way to absolutely prove or disprove their relationship with god. I do find religion, philosophy and spirituality really interesting, so I am aware of various ideas and concepts.
I will explain one interpretation of Christianity to you. It doesn't mean it is true, but also shows how what is written cannot necessarily be proven to be either true or false.
There is a view that if god were to show himself, physical existence would melt away. Think of god in this sense as 'absolute truth' or 'absolute reality'. Think of finite reality as the opposite; temporal; an illusion. Physical reality would melt away because the 'truth' is not finite it is infinite. It is the light where as this world is the darkness. If we were to look at this from a Christian perspective Jesus in this context would be that which unites the finite with the infinite. He is absolute truth in the flesh. Making physical reality real as opposed to an illusion. In other words, the reason finite reality exists is because Christ is the intermediary that unites us with god.
It is something I guess that solves the paradox. In an infinite universe without limits or boundaries, is it possible for finite reality to exist? how can it when infinite reality is absolute? Yet, how can it not when there are no limits and boundaries?
The answer maybe is that finite reality infinitely exists; it is only our perception of reality that is finite. A finite mind cannot take in an infinite amount of information, therefore it sees things gradually becoming, as opposed to infinitely existing. The universe is gradually expanding, nature is gradually evolving. In this sense everything is dualistic. There is an earthly and spiritual realm. The more animalistic you act, the greater you become bounded by the illusion of physical reality. You separate yourself from the truth; the fall of Adam & Eve. You live by its rules. This means death is the outcome. From a christian perspective becoming truly spiritual is impossible by ourselves as we have corrupted ourselves with the lie (finite reality) which means we can never be absolute (infinite reality). Jesus then dies (finite reality) and resurrects (infinite reality) uniting both in the process. jJesus then is the method in which we evolve spiritually.
Sanky Panky
Banned
They have tried to expand on what happens afterwards (and yes they now claim that they were brought in by meteors), but tell me what other process for the forming of the basic components of life is there other than applying energy to catalyze chemical reactions? (yeah that 50's experiment). They can't agree on the conditions for that to happen, and they can't figure out how that ammounted to anything, but yeah, it boils down to that.
No, you don't get it. I don't care what people claim to know or what they're "confident" about. This tangent started because I dared to claim that agnostic atheism is the most rational position one can start at since it assumes the least and makes no unprovable claims. Ooooh, such a controversial stance just begging to be shut down.
So of course, that had to be debated by the gnostic atheists among us who claim to know with certainty that no god or higher power exists.
Save your charity for someone who needs it. I'm doing just fine without it, thanks.
Yes, assessing different possibilities can be an element of skepticism but taking a position is definitely not necessary.
So you propose what, for all research to end, because it is useless and you've already concluded what they are researching is ridiculous? Is that how science works in your opinion? And how is any of this analogous with religious faith, this was the point you were trying to make? How is experimentation and the use of the scientific method the same as grabbing your nearest bible and claiming it contains everything you need to know?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664678/?tool=pubmed
By the way, "scientists don't agree" and "scientists don't know yet" are very, very poor argument.
100 years ago we had absolutely no idea about DNA (other than "there's some king of information being inherited). We can know make giant tomatoes resistent to some bugs, fluorescent mice, and cure genetic diseases.
Many people disagreed with Einstein, Pasteur or Darwin, some just out of principle, some having their own theories. In each case one of them was right in the end.
Well, you have a certain special way of pulling in a shit storm. Even people that would happily agree with your initial position are turned off by your subsequent rebuttals - and for many (including myself) that catch portions of arguments been thrown around, some of the stuff you respond with is of a disagreeable nature (argument wise).
I'm not sure how many people entangled in your arguments right now are explicitly gnostic atheists. I mean, I'm happy to claim that I'm atheist, even though if you push me, I'll tell you I'm agnostic atheist.
But I only make this claim on the position that we define god in a manner that is unmeasurable/unobservable (directly or indirectly) to us.
Yes it is, how can you be intellectually honest without taking positions? What kind of idiot wastes his time assesing different ideas without taking a decision?
The wiki article is very simplistic. Ofcourse later civilizations build upon the achievements of earlier civilizations, why would I disagree with that? The fact is that of all the movements towards the modern scientific method, only the movement in Christian Europe was able to survive and get to the stage it is at now. This has a lot to do with the seperation between the worldly and the religious spheres in Western Christianity, that is absent in both Orthodox Christianity and Islam. The modern method as a dominant way of looking at the universe comes from Christian Europe, not Babylonia or Muslim Iraq.
You can take multiple positions assigning them each a probability. I mean, not like you're going to bust out a calculator, but in the exercise of assessing the veracity, and probability of various possibilities... you've automatically generated that probability mapping.
If there's one that stands out significantly, then it's only natural to take it as a position. If multiple options are of equal probability - then commonality is assessed... if there is none, then yeah, you're pretty uncertain.
It is hardwired into our neurological function to create probability mappings of outcomes, events, thoughts and ideas... Skepticism in practice then is simply a system to help generate probability mappings of the greatest efficacy in the more abstract concepts and things we deal with in life.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
So it's bad to assess diffrent ideas and give them equal chances?
What you described is very similar to the teachings in the Vedantic texts, where Maya is the temporary and illusory material nature covering up the eternal and infinite spiritual realm.
Buddha taught that behind Maya is nothing, the void, whereas Hindu teachings say god is behind the illusion. Both schools are all about transcendence and shedding of karma which keeps us tangled in the material world.
Meh, the mud is already being flung, I just decide to join in from time to time.
Uchip and Log are clearly gnostic atheists. If not, I wouldn't be defending the position of agnostic atheist as being rational against them.
I think you overestimate the amount of people willing to be intellectually honest when it comes to being skeptical. A person does not need to take a position in order to be skeptical of someone else's. They can keep moving the goalposts indefinitely and when challenged on what their position is simply throw their hands up and plead ignorance.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Experiments don't have to end, I fully support people trying to make a living my comming up plausible scenarios. Unless our understanding of molecular biology, basic chemistry, and DNA radically change, scientists can simply claim that it is unlikely based on experiments and observation, that life happened via natural processes.
I'm just stating what they are currently doing. My argument against the theory is that nature inherently CAN'T.
Again, unless we discover something completely different to chemistry, and that our current elements in nature behave in an entirely different way, it's not a matter of further scientific discovery.
UChip, log... is this true?
You guys know that if we can't measure or examine a claim, it is outside our boundary of ability to have certain knowledge about it right?
e.g. should the expansion rate of the universe exceed the speed of light for a while - (which it actually is) - after a while, we won't be able to see anything but our own galaxy. At some point, we'll exist in a universe where we won't be able to verify the existence of external galaxies - even if they are very real things.
(Actually, our knowledge of the universe would be very much stuffed without the ability to infer from all those galaxies... and who knows - maybe there are elements and components of the universe that have already escaped our ability to measure them directly or indirectly).
Everyone that has PHD levels of understanding of those exact areas would make the opposite claim. I don't know of a single reputable scientist who has come to the conclusion that life could not have occurred through natural means.
Satymadas. Care to answer?
Yes. It is why people say that all religions are actually very similar from a more esoteric level. It's really all about interpretation.
For instance Moses climbing mount sinai: was it literally or metaphorically? It could be interpreted as Moses reaching a higher level of consciousness. Using the word 'mountain' as a metaphor to describe the heavenly realm isn't all that uncommon in religion; mount Olympus for example in Greek mythology.
Isn't that what you are doing?
Being cynical is counter productive and a waste of energy. Playing on words and refusing to take position simply makes you a troll.
If tentatively do not take a position until you get more info, that is fine. If you argue both sides without the intention of taking one, what is the point?
Dude Abides
Banned
Unless you're intentionally failing to understand the difference between a claim to know with reasonable confidence and a claim to know with certainty in a pointless attempt to be contrarian.
Well Leprechauns are a part of Irish folklore. I doubt they were real creatures, but seeing as how I was not there when the original books were written I can't be 100% certain of this.
I take position 2, "I am unsure about whether Leprechauns exist(ed)". They may have existed and gone extinct, they may have floated up to Jupiter, or they may just be made up. If a gun was to my head I'd say I mostly believe they are made up, but even so I'd not claim to know they never existed with absolute certainty.
I understand the difference clearly, perhaps you are having trouble? When it comes to the question of the existence of a higher power, you can't claim to know it does or does not exist, no matter how "reasonably confident" you are. Unless you wish to admit to a not insignificant reliance on faith. I'm sure theists consider their knowledge of god reasonably confident as well.DudeAbides said:
blame space
Banned
is anyone keeping score? can i be the roastmaster?
If a friend of yours told you that they did not believe in Leprechauns, is your position inherently more rational and logical than theirs? Or are they on equal footing given the extremity of the claim?
I have a good idea of what your answer may be, in case you feel you do not wish to answer this question.
I don't know. Maybe you should ask someone who is doing that?
blame space
Banned
Account Approvals is online. I hope they post.
No, their position is not less rational than mine because they are positing a belief, rather than knowledge. If they said they know for sure that leprechauns don't exist, I'd say my position is then more rational to take.
This is where I stand on the matter, too. Science has yet to fully explain the origins of man, but at the same time, the idea that it came from an all-knowing God also has holes. If God was all knowing and transcends what we know as the physical world, how can we as human beings even grasp the intentions and desires such a being wants for us as an entire species of mankind? We'd only be making assumptions, and if the three major religions are anything to go by, each assumption comes with some questionable components on lifestyles.
Personally, I cannot say whether or not a God/Gods/Life form of the cosmos exists, but at the same time the idea behind such things is it transcends the physical existence. I prefer the scientific stance of an anti-realist, being able to physically observe what we can up close and personal. I don't think such science can observe an idea of transcendence. I'd like to also hope my consciousness doesn't simply wipe away upon death, but that's more of a hopeful thought with no solid science/belief to back that up for me.
If only we had a world of cybernetics. ):
If you take that position you will live an uncertain life full of pointless mystery.
Every single position in science and reason when something is considered a fact means it is 99.99% certain.
There is always the odd chance we are in the Matrix or Wizards are hiding the real world. But why even seriously consider this hypothesis?
The problem with that is we're limited by our own perception of reality and the apparatus we create.
So if this friend told you he knew your uncle was not a leprechaun, despite not knowing your uncle, and you not telling him of your uncle, and you not correcting him, is he making an irrational assumption? Or would it simply be more rational for him not to assume your uncle was not a leprechaun because he lacks knowledge?
Humans must use prior knowledge, observations, experience, logic and reasoning in every day decision making. It is just as acceptable to simply claim leprechauns do not exist, since there is no prior knowledge, precedent, observations or any logic behind the concept, than to say one simply "does not know" or "cannot be certain".
Am I wrong?
Dude Abides
Banned
Clearly you don't understand it.
An assertion that someone knows something is just a shorthand for a statement that they are reasonably confident it is true. You're trying to subvert that linguistic convention into a claim of 100% metaphysically certainty in an apparent attempt to win debating points on the internet.
Live Free or Die
Banned
Why do you care what other people believe?
Says who?
Oh cool, more statistics plucked from thin air. Mind telling me where you got that number from?
I don't know, why don't you ask someone who seriously considers those hypotheses?
Seeing as how my friend knows I am a human, and seeing as how he only has experience of humans coming from other humans, I think his belief that my uncle is not a leprechaun can be considered quite rational.
Yes, these things are important in every day decision making.
When we begin to talk about the origin of life, origin of the universe, whether the universe has a creator or not, then we leave the realm of "every day decision making" and move into a philosophical area. Indeed, we have no prior knowledge of what caused the big bang, or whether something exists outside the universe, or whether a supreme being exists. We can't observe these things, and our experience is infinitesimally tiny in the grand scheme.
So making an absolute claim like "god definitely does not exist", is not analogous to the claim "the 405 will definitely be crowded at rush hour". If you are just as certain about the former as you are the latter, then so be it. But you can't claim that your belief is informed by prior knowledge, observation, empirical evidence, or experience. It rests upon faith.
So
1. Do you deny that there has been progress in the last few decades in the direction of understanding life and non-life? And why do you assert that life has to have DNA? Do you know that they have found an organism, on this planet - that replaces phosphate in dna with arsenic? Do you understand what the implication is? That we give too much credit to the building blocks of DNA, AND that it's flexible. It's entirely likely that maybe there is life out there that doesn't use DNA, but some other system of information.
Are you saying 'life' can be described as SIMPLY having DNA? And not... consuming, moving, growing and duplicating?
Nope.
1. You assume that Atheists MUST have an opinion on the origin of life - why does that have to be the case? I can just reject religion as not being a good enough answer, and if I choose, REJECT abiogenesis as not being a good enough answer. I don't HAVE to choose a side, that's like saying if there are two girls who tell you to choose between them, you HAVE to - I can just jerk off.
2. If I don't believe a God doesn't exist, I don't have to do anything except not believe in God.
First of all, Atheism has no requirements - you can ascribe things to metaphysical causes, and still be an Atheist if you want.
Secondly, not having certainty of one facet of our being does not weaken the position of not believing in one persons, or any persons, belief system. That makes absolutely no sense, and I think you are being intellectually dishonest by saying so to prove your point - tell me how not believing that there is a giant portal between locations in the centre of our galaxy, that leads to another galaxy - weakens my position. If someone told me that and I said "There's no evidence that that's the case, but I don't know what is in the centre of our galaxy for sure" does that weaken my position, and strengthen theirs? That's bullshit bro and you know it.
So when the theist claims to know god exists, and the demands for proof and evidence pop up, are you ever there to remind those demanding proof that "knowing something" is just a shorthand for a statement they are reasonably confident is true, and that they are just subverting linguistic conventions in order to win debating points on the internet?
Or do you only come to the rescue of atheists who are sloppy with their words?
Dude Abides
Banned
Why don't you use the search function and find out? I suppose I could ask the reverse of you if I were interested in your personal posting habits.
The typical theist claim is of metaphysical certainty borne of personal revelation, in my experience, not of 85% confidence.
So, if I make the claim that your uncle was not a leprechaun, even though I do not have prior knowledge, observation, empirical evidence or experience, it rests on faith?
You do have prior knowledge and observation on your side because you know that I'm human and you have observed and experienced that humans only give birth to other humans. So it doesn't take faith to assume that my uncle is human rather than leprechaun.
Why are you struggling so hard?
You do have prior knowledge and observation on your side because you know that I'm human and you have observed and experienced that humans only give birth to other humans. So it doesn't take faith to assume that my uncle is human rather than leprechaun.
Why are you struggling so hard?
Don't I take it on faith that you are human? How am I to know you are not a leprechaun, or an alien, or god?
Are you god testing my faith? How can I say for certain?
blame space
Banned
I am God.
You do have prior knowledge and observation on your side because you know that I'm human and you have observed and experienced that humans only give birth to other humans. So it doesn't take faith to assume that my uncle is human rather than leprechaun.
Why are you struggling so hard?
Your problem is you are asserting a condition "every day decision making" - which is entirely something that fits your predefined criteria. I'd say it's important for ALL decision making and knowledge seeking. And I'll say that this focus on previous knowledge, empiricism etc. can manifest itself in different ways. You can apply those concepts to your 'every day life', as you put it, or you can apply it to 'out there' concepts like the origin of life or the universe or whatever.
Using those criteria doesn't mean you HAVE to reach a level of 10/10 gnostic like belief on any subject, and using those criteria it's still very normal to have scaling levels of 'belief' in the validity of any subject. Whether it be every day things, or the centre-of-the-sun like things.
- Status