Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[bilby]

No. It's an argument from ubiquitous corroboration.

No, it's a very tired and oft refuted argument from lack of humility; The analogy of the blind men and the elephant only works if there is a sighted man to narrate it - and, oh, golly, gee, gosh, it turns out that the one person with that overall perspective - the "god's eye view" if you would - is YOU!

Your humility overwhelms me. I bet you are the most humble person ever!

The simple explanation for why believers differ in their descriptions of their gods is that those gods are local, and fictional.

The idea that they are apparently different aspects of a single entity is absurd in light of their being mutually contradictory - to propose that god is simultaneously one and indivisible, as the Muslims say; AND a trinity, as claimed by Christians; AND a pantheon as claimed by many ancient traditions, including greco-roman and norse, is literally insane.

But then, as the concept of "trinity" is itself absurd (1=3 isn't inspiring, impressive and mind expanding mathematics, it's just wrong), it doesn't surprise me that Christians embrace contradictory claims and declare them compatible by fiat. The problem being that if you accept contradiction, you can prove literally any claim, and therefore can support no claims at all.

Of course, you have waited a while since the last time your use of this daft analogy on this discussion board, presumably in the hope that people will have forgotton that it was soundly refuted as the absurdity it is back then; Sadly I have to inform you that despite my age, my memory remains pretty good.

The parable of the blind men and the elephant is OK as a story for kindergarten; But adults should know better than to trot it out as though it were an actual serious argument. Unless, of course, they stopped thinking at the age of five, and outsourced that function.

 

[bilby]

Have you got anything which contradicts Genesis?

Observed reality does; Is that not sufficent?

 

[Swammerdami]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

For all evidence for Yahweh, e_i, there exists contrary evidence, e_j, such that a Loki prankster conclusion is infinitely more likely.

Mention of Loki prankster reminded me of the  Boltzmann brain hypothesis.

But why can't BOTH be correct? Yahweh is some sort of super-fluctuation which deliberately spawned lots of Boltzmann brains or pranksters.

 

[Elixir]

I meant generally speaking, All Christians believe in God.

So nothing about the OOL?

Would someone please open a goddidit thread for these kids?

 

[Elixir]

This is good - especially the word "formation".
The bible also uses the word formed.

The Bible also uses the word STUPID.
So what?

Have you got anything which contradicts Genesis?

You mean besides the process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.? Actually yes, but you don’t understand what you’ve been given already. Pearls before swine, and all that.

Got anything that contradicts the science, besides “goddidit” ?

 

[Elixir]

No. It's an argument from ubiquitous corroboration

Bullshit.
I do not subscribe to your god, ergo your assertion is nothing but a desperate attempt to cling to appearances of opinions to bolster your fallacious fact claim.
Or maybe you just like using words without learning their meanings.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If we grant that it is intelligent design, then the existence of this missing in action creator is much harder to explain than the original question about the existence of everything else.

Evidence for God - Exhibit B

I think there are, and have been, overwhelmingly more people (throughout history) who have had sensory evidence of a Higher Being than there are people who say they haven't experienced such evidence.

Is this an argumentum ad populam?

No. It's an argument from ubiquitous corroboration.

The vast majority do not have sensory evidence for the Mormon god, the Shia Muslim god, the Sunni Muslim god, Ra, Odin, Zeus, Yahweh, Jehovah, Vishnu, but instead each claims to have sensory evidence for particular gods telling them they are the chosen ones, sometimes even to smite their enemies in immoral ways (like with Yahweh) but that's an aside.

#1: None of the particular gods has a vast majority of persons having had so-called sensory evidence for it. So it fails by its own so-called standards, even though "ubiquitous corroboration" is really just argumentum ad populum. We don't have to call it a logical fallacy because it fails anyway.

#2: If we could actually use ubiquitous corroboration (which we cannot because it's just argumentum ad populum) for a thing, then we could prove the opposite. We could show that Yahweh is not the true god (since most of humanity has agreed that Yahweh is not the particular true god), that the Shia Allah is not the true god (since most of humanity has agreed), that the Sunni Allah is not the true god (since most of humanity has agreed), that Jehovah and Brahma are not the true god (since most of humanity has agreed), etc etc.

#3: So we are left with other explanations such as for example psychology which does explain this, but ignoring that, it's more likely that everyone is lying than that a particular god is The One True God (tm). Or that there is a prankster god such as Loki who is creating all these false senses of a multitude of gods in order to get people to have wars with each other and murder people and do all sorts of other chaotic things.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

For all evidence for Yahweh, e_i, there exists contrary evidence, e_j, such that a Loki prankster conclusion is infinitely more likely.

Mention of Loki prankster reminded me of the  Boltzmann brain hypothesis.

But why can't BOTH be correct? Yahweh is some sort of super-fluctuation which deliberately spawned lots of Boltzmann brains or pranksters.

That's not something I heard about 'til your link. It seems like, if I understand properly, that the super-fluctuation would be more consistent with a Loki-type personality, than an alleged omnibenevolent Yahweh that is trying to morally test people. If Yahweh's goal is to test people after giving them free will, then he would not be setting out to trick them because it would confound the tests. Loki, on the other hand, would certainly try to deliberately spawn pranks. Something about this also reminds me of an Eric Cartman-type personality who eventually could get bored with his sea people followers and then decide to randomly socially experiment with them.

 

[Lion IRC]

This is good - especially the word "formation".
The bible also uses the word formed.

The Bible also uses the word STUPID.
So what?

Hey. If you want to bring in even more scripture that's fine by me.

Have you got anything which contradicts Genesis?

You mean besides the process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.?

I ask for something which contradicts Genesis and you give me "...increasing complexity involving the formation of..."

How does that contradict Genesis.

If your case rests on words like "emerge" and "emergence" and some mysterious, spontaneous, invisible hand, "autocatalysis" that's fine.

I'm not bothered by those beliefs.

Actually yes, but you don’t understand what you’ve been given already. Pearls before swine, and all that.

Hey, if you wanna keep your lamp under a bushel that's your business.
 

Got anything that contradicts the science, besides “goddidit” ?

I dont think the bible contradicts science.
(See what I did there?)

 

[Lion IRC]

If we grant that it is intelligent design, then the existence of this missing in action creator is much harder to explain than the original question about the existence of everything else.

Evidence for God - Exhibit B

I think there are, and have been, overwhelmingly more people (throughout history) who have had sensory evidence of a Higher Being than there are people who say they haven't experienced such evidence.

Is this an argumentum ad populam?

No. It's an argument from ubiquitous corroboration.

The vast majority do not have sensory evidence for the Mormon god, the Shia Muslim god, the Sunni Muslim god, Ra, Odin, Zeus, Yahweh, Jehovah, Vishnu, but instead each claims to have sensory evidence for particular gods...

Theists outnumber atheists. (That is an ad populam)
What's not an an ad populam argument is this;

If even just one single human experience of a Higher Being from even just one single denomination or sect or religion that ever existed throughout the last 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 thousand years is even partly true, then atheism is false.

On the other hand, in order for atheism to be true, every single one of the billions of human sensory experiences of God/gods throughout the last 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 thousand years must ALL BE FALSIFIED.

#1: None of the particular gods has a vast majority of persons having had so-called sensory evidence for it. So it fails by its own so-called standards, even though "ubiquitous corroboration" is really just argumentum ad populum. We don't have to call it a logical fallacy because it fails anyway.

If you want to dismiss the Hindu, and the Jew, and the Muslim, and the Christian on the basis that they don't all agree on God/god's nature then, to be consistent in your argument, you should accept the aspects of those religions which do agree.

And the one thing those religions ALL do agree on is that atheism is false.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Blind man who grabbed the tusk: "I grabbed something piercing and a voice whispered to me that I should murder my firstborn son."
Blind man who grabbed the ear: "I grabbed a floppy thing and it told me that my people are better than everyone else, giving me the rights to their lands."
Blind man who grabbed the trunk: "I grabbed a wet, graspy thing and it told me that MY people are better than everyone else, giving ME the rights to their lands."
Blind man who grabbed a leg: "I grabbed a stump and it told me that plants are older than the Sun."
Blind man who grabbed the schlong: "Uh, uh, I really don't like this game anymore."

Loki: *laughs* and *laughs*

 

[bilby]

If even just one single human experience of a Higher Being from even just one single denomination or sect or religion that ever existed throughout the last 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 thousand years is even partly true, then atheism is false.

ONLY if by "higher being" you unequivocally mean "god". But yes.

On the other hand, in order for atheism to be true, every single one of the billions of human sensory experiences of God/gods throughout the last 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 thousand years must ALL BE FALSIFIED.

No, they need only be FALSE. And everything we know about reality suggests that they are.

Which isn't even close to being the same thing as their needing to be FALSIFIED.

Thousands of attempts have been made to build perpetual motion machines. For the laws of thermodynamics to be true, every single one of those attempts needs to have failed. This fact in no way makes it more reasonable to believe that the laws of thermodynamics are false; In exactly the same way, your argument from incredulity fails with respect to atheism.

If ANY human claim of god(s) is true, then atheism is false. But it's perfectly reasonable to assume that none of them are.

The idea that large numbers of people cannot be wrong, is demonstrably false. And that should be bleeding obvious to anyone who is even vaguely paying attention.

 

[Elixir]

Hey. If you want to bring in even more scripture that's fine by me.

If it comforts you, bring it I guess. I already know everything you’re trying to tell me (and anyone who will listen):
GODDIDIT.

I dont think the bible contradicts science.
(See what I did there?)

What you “think” is irrelevant to science.
When the Bible becomes more predictive or explanatory than science, let me know.
Meanwhile I totally get everything you’re saying:
GODDIDIT

 

[Learner]

I meant generally speaking, All Christians believe in God.

So nothing about the OOL?

Admirably you've studied ever so hard for that moment to be presenting your case winner. It just needs the Creo to fall into this particular angle of debate.

Would someone please open a goddidit thread for these kids?

Look no further Elixir, this is the religion section of the forum.

I believe Godditit, etc & etc.

 

[Elixir]

Look no further Elixir, this is the religion section of the forum

Ah yes. Thread moved. Goddidit!!
Y’all have fun here in your sandbox, with my apologies.

 

[Learner]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

For all evidence for Yahweh, e_i, there exists contrary evidence, e_j, such that a Loki prankster conclusion is infinitely more likely.

Loki doesn't have a validator like Jesus is to God, does he? Obviously if we're considering Jesus existed of course.

Joseph Smith and Mohammed are validators for the mormon god and muslim god. As far as miracle claims there are plenty among the world's religions. So, yeah, this is evidence of a prankster god more than any one of the religions being valid.

'Been there done that' comparison - seeing it then as you do now (back in my agnostic days).
Jumping years forward, I say briefly, I took a look at the bible again and from what I read, and studies from others before me.. I now understood 'what should have been obvious', is the great emphasis on the importance of there being a need for 'two or more witnesses' in any sort of dispute or doubt scenario, like the importance of the four Gospels being an advantage.

The perfect examples as you brought up to compare with: The difference between All three: Joseph Smith and Mohammed were lone witnesses and the main writers of their scriptures. Both claimed they were visited by an angel.

Both faiths are considered more or less 'work based' religions, whereas life is a 'free gift' in Christianity e.g. from Gods grace etc.

( Some believers believe the verse below could have some connecting significance, while others, it's based more on some influential aspects of the bible.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15
KJV

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.)

 

[Lion IRC]

Evidence for a Creator- Exhibit "A"

We didn't cause ourselves to exist.

This is not evidence for God. The evidence — the fact — is that evolution caused us to exist.

My position is that a Creator caused what you call evolution.

If you want to call evolution the Capital "C" Cause that's fine by me.

...except your Cause can't really take credit for being The Cause because it was either unavoidably inevitable and/or spontaneous.

If it was the inevitable result of time plus chance, then how can you separate the cause from the event itself.

You're saying the equivalent of....the cause (evolution) caused evolution.

And it you want to say it's just a completely unpredictable, spontaneous event you're appealing to something as scientifically meaningless as 'magic'.

And even if we did not know about evolution, “we didn’t cause ourselves to exist” is not evidence for God. It’s a silly God of the Gaps argument.

We haven't always existed.

So? No evidence for God there, either. Baseball hasn’t always existed, either. Does that mean God created baseball?

Someone created baseball.
But I'm liking the direction you're headed with that whole...baseball didn't exist, now it does, and so we can infer....

Past-eternal time plus chance can't explain our existence because because that would entail inevitability and the enigma of our prior absence until now.

The above not only fails to be evidence for God, it’s barely coherent. How would past eternal time plus chance “entail inevitability” — inevitability of what?

I can see why you struggle to understand.
Let me explain.

If there has been a past-eternity of time, then that is not only long enough for one spontaneous chance event to occur (such as abiogenesis), it's long enough for an infinite number of spontaneous events to occur.

Everything that could possibly happen must have already happened - an infinite number of times. Over and over again. Groundhog Day on steroids.
 

What does that even mean? And why would our prior absence be an enigma? What are you even trying to say?

In a scenario of past-eternity, life on Earth has already arisen spontaneously. But the extant evidence shows prior absence of life on Earth. And Earth. And the universe.

 

[lostone]

Evidence for a Creator- Exhibit "A"

We didn't cause ourselves to exist.

This is not evidence for God. The evidence — the fact — is that evolution caused us to exist.

My position is that a Creator caused what you call evolution.

If you want to call evolution the Capital "C" Cause that's fine by me.

...except your Cause can't really take credit for being The Cause because it was either unavoidably inevitable and/or spontaneous.

If it was the inevitable result of time plus chance, then how can you separate the cause from the event itself.

You're saying the equivalent of....the cause (evolution) caused evolution.

And it you want to say it's just a completely unpredictable, spontaneous event you're appealing to something as scientifically meaningless as 'magic'.

And even if we did not know about evolution, “we didn’t cause ourselves to exist” is not evidence for God. It’s a silly God of the Gaps argument.

We haven't always existed.

So? No evidence for God there, either. Baseball hasn’t always existed, either. Does that mean God created baseball?

Someone created baseball.
But I'm liking the direction you're headed with that whole...baseball didn't exist, now it does, and so we can infer....

Past-eternal time plus chance can't explain our existence because because that would entail inevitability and the enigma of our prior absence until now.

The above not only fails to be evidence for God, it’s barely coherent. How would past eternal time plus chance “entail inevitability” — inevitability of what?

I can see why you struggle to understand.
Let me explain.

If there has been a past-eternity of time, then that is not only long enough for one spontaneous chance event to occur (such as abiogenesis), it's long enough for an infinite number of spontaneous events to occur.

Everything that could possibly happen must have already happened - an infinite number of times. Over and over again. Groundhog Day on steroids.
 

What does that even mean? And why would our prior absence be an enigma? What are you even trying to say?

In a scenario of past-eternity, life on Earth has already arisen spontaneously. But the extant evidence shows prior absence of life on Earth. And Earth. And the universe.

The evidence suggests clearly that life DID arise spontaneously on Earth. Perhaps seeded from comets, et al, Because that is the nature of organic chemistry. And perhaps did so so many times before in prior universes.

 

[Lion IRC]

The evidence suggests clearly that life DID arise spontaneously on Earth.

Wouldn't that be "absence of evidence"?
By definition, spontaneous events wouldnt have evidence of any cause.

Or do you think there is empirical, repeatable, testable evidence for stuff happening unpredictably?

Perhaps seeded from comets, et al,

What is it thats being seeded?
Life or non-life?

Saying...a comet brought life to Earth is fine, but thats not abiogenesis and its not getting us anywhere because we will want to know how life on the comet was created.

Because that is the nature of organic chemistry.

Question begging much?

And perhaps did so so many times before in prior universes.

An argument from unknown possibilities isn't better than God did it.

Maybe you think it is. But throwing extra possibilities on the table doesn't simplify the problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wouldn't that be "absence of evidence"

No, the absence of evidence doesn't say anything.

The evidence that says it happened spontaneously is discussed in the split-away OP this derail came off of, namely that "the environment of the early earth is conducive to spontaneous biogenesis."

As I said repeatedly perhaps in both threads at this point, that was the point of the experiment: to reproduce the environment we know existed from evidence, an environment first produced by large scale chaos, and then without delivering any intent for the outcome, see what outcome happens there.

That serves as further evidence that "this result happens spontaneously in this environment".