Maybe we should just get something clear - are you saying that abiogenesis is a theory or a fact?
The joys of life without God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
lightgigantic said:
What's your theory on the origins of life (as if I don't already know)?
Would you prefer if we just gave up on all scientific research and just accepted that God must have done it? Perhaps you'd like Kent Hovind to decide what we teach in biology lessons around the world?
lightgigantic said:
You can check the speed of light yourself with a microwave oven, you do have one of those, don't you, hypocrite?
A ridiculous statement, to say the least. There is no authority involved in conducting your own experiments. Clearly, if that is your argument going forward, there is no need to discuss anything.
That isn't even an argument, LG. You're grasping at straws.
So, simply because a particular process involves time, to you, it can't possibly happen? Only small children are in the habit of expecting instant gratification.
Pointless drivel.
Sorry, LG, you're not even responding with a shred of intellect. Later, dude.
KennyJC said:
It's because, as we both know, they think God did it. They can't tell you how, but they will tell you when and why. It's the how that stumps them, and the only reason they do not accept evolution or any of the theories for the origin of life is because it doesn't say so in the Bible. Tragic.
wsionynw said:
The ironic thing for me is that if there is a God, clearly he designed the universe to obey 'materialistic' objectives. So life coming from matter does not remotely disprove God. God is something that will never be disproved, so no matter how atheistic the evidence, theists could still be correct. If people intend to be rational followers of God, then they must accept the scientifict consensus whilst realizing there is still room to believe in God.
wsionynw said:
Scientific research is ok - its when persons start jumping the gun with their theories that the whole nature of science becomes problematic
As for what I think - I think empiricism has its limitations and it becomes a joke when it breaches these limits
Q
??????
Sorry - didn't mean to disrupt your views by scientific presentations
Not sure where you would go from possession of a microwave oven to measuring the speed of light as 2.99792458 x 10(8) m s(-1)
??????
If you cannot see axioms as authorities its impossible to conduct experiments
When it comes to claims of fact it should be verifiable - for instance the speed of light is verifiable and it is therefore axiomatic - abiogenesis however is not and for a person to accept it as axiomatic is foolishness
Sorry - didn't mean to disrupt your views by scientific presentations
... which brings us to the question of correct epistemologyGodless said:And the limits are when you are asked to provide evidence of your imaginary deity!
wsionynw said:
Once again - it seems that you are not familiar with the work of many ID scientists - you seem to have this fixated vision of a bible thumper - there are many ID scientists from a variety of faiths, not just xtian - and they operate out of the premise that life is something unique and distinct from dull matter, which BTW was the paradigm that science used to operate out of before it gradually came under the conviction that life could be materially reproduced (first by wohler who synthesized urea in the mid 1840's or so)
At least the idea that life comes from life is verifiable - the idea that life comes from reconstructing dull matter bereft of consciousness is not verifiable
Epistemology again, is that the best you can do? You have to be kiding. I already told you yet you fail to understand, the claim of religious epistemology is automatic! It's not a learned process, which is the basis of what it epistemology means.
*Epistemology is one of the core areas of philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. Epistemology has been primarily concerned with propositional knowledge, that is, knowledge that such-and-such is true, rather than other forms of knowledge, for example, knowledge how to such-and-such. There is a vast array of views about propositional knowledge, but one virtually universal presupposition is that knowledge is true belief, but not mere true belief (see Belief and knowledge). For example, lucky guesses or true beliefs resulting from wishful thinking are not knowledge.*http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/P059
So enough with the "wishfull thinking" that you posses some bs knowledge, you have shown otherwise, your lack of understanding is pasted all over sciforums, you are and continue to make yourself look like a complete imbecile.
*Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.
Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.*Irrational Epistemology
*Epistemology is one of the core areas of philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. Epistemology has been primarily concerned with propositional knowledge, that is, knowledge that such-and-such is true, rather than other forms of knowledge, for example, knowledge how to such-and-such. There is a vast array of views about propositional knowledge, but one virtually universal presupposition is that knowledge is true belief, but not mere true belief (see Belief and knowledge). For example, lucky guesses or true beliefs resulting from wishful thinking are not knowledge.*http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/P059
So enough with the "wishfull thinking" that you posses some bs knowledge, you have shown otherwise, your lack of understanding is pasted all over sciforums, you are and continue to make yourself look like a complete imbecile.
*Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.
Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.*Irrational Epistemology
Last edited:
Godless said:
One of the reasons I have insisted on using the word "epistemology" instead of something like "methodology" is because it innvolves the limits of knowledge - ie epistemology of spiritual knowledge innvolves personal behavious because it is thenature of one's consciousness that will determine how what or why one knows what one knows - this is distinct from empirical knowledge, which operates out of methodologies.
For instance suppose there are two genetic researchers in the field of stem cloning - on e of them has a debauched personal life and the other does not - this does not affect their ability to research genetics
Now suppose there are two theistic persons who claim that god is great - one of them has a debauched personal life of sex and crime and the other does not - why would the former be considered to be operating out of imperfect knowledge?
Inother words when it comes to knowing god there are ways that you have to behave (not just being moral but also displaying the correct conscious attitude togod) that will determine how much you can know - of course being an atheist you have severe difficulties even with the theory of such knowledge hence you say thatthere isno evidence for god - a claim that runs contary to numerous persons past and present who have applied the correct epistemology
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Faith.html
From the get go! you have failed again to understand anything that has been writen.
You base your epistemology I.E. Knowlege of god, on faith based on others assertions, not observations, not emperical evidence for such an entity, you rely on the assertions of "authoraties" i.e. popes, religious gurus, and quasy good feelings of enlightenment.
From the get go! you have failed again to understand anything that has been writen.
You base your epistemology I.E. Knowlege of god, on faith based on others assertions, not observations, not emperical evidence for such an entity, you rely on the assertions of "authoraties" i.e. popes, religious gurus, and quasy good feelings of enlightenment.
Last edited:
Godless said:
But I have never advocated knowledge of god on faith - on the contary I say that god is objectively verifiable - and one who claims that they have objectively perceived god can be qualified according to symptoms - which is where I call on the eg of the high school drop out and the electron - in other words the high school drop out has an epistemological difficulty with the scientific community, hence his knowledge is limited
however you still have'nt proved this, and thus because of this inability, and a total lack of evidence, your beliefs must be based on faith, blind faith.lightgigantic said:
Sarkus said:
You guessed it
Its back to the old analogy about the high school drop out's stance that electrons don't exist because professors are "eggheads" and the books on physics are "full of crap" - in other words the obstacle to knowledge is not necessarily intelligence but attitude
lightgigantic said:
Of course you don't, that was exactly the point. You don't know anything about that which you discredit.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/ripe/icpe/newsletters/n34/marshmal.htm
Then your symptom my friend is a lot graver then what we all thought. For not even the Pope, god's quaterback if you will, claims certainty that a god can be perceived "objectively" i.e. The pope may be a closet atheist, and not delusional.
*A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).
Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders and particularly in schizophrenia.*
Delusion
Godless