Was God a Man or Woman?

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
very disingenuous...
if it is a mystery then how can one possibly just categorically dismiss any plausible explanation (for example 'intelligent design')...
atheists/ spontaneous originators also believe life started as 'magic' since they can't chart &amp; reproduce it...

</div></div>

well we have been over this ground, and they are beginning to reproduce examples of how life could have begun. you use the word &quot;plausible&quot; and that is the key to where your argument really collapses.

any scientific claim- such as the one that we don't need a god or original cause to explain why life is the way it is, is backed up by falsifiable evidence. falsifiable meaning to say that the ways the supposition could be wrong have been explored.

as opposed to the argument from incredulity- such as life is way too complex to have just randomly formed and other variations.

in the guts of such arguments, what is plausible is more earnestly met by science.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i always maintain that until they can produce life from non-life, they have no grounds to insist their theory is the correct one;
belittling others' theories without proving your theory does not make one more intelligent...
</div></div>

let us take a different example then, to show the flaw of this line of reasoning.

I will substitute a different noun to show how unreasonable your statement is.

&quot;i always maintain that until they can replace a human heart valve, they have no grounds to insist their theory that - a heart valve can be replaced- is possible;

belittling others' theories without proving your theory does not make one more intelligent...&quot;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">claiming science is 'closing in' on the great mystery changes nothing...
you know no more than the faithers &amp; this is the sad truth you must swallow;
</div></div>

you are wrong again. Johnny apparently knows quite a bit more than the faithers. in the sense that, for example let us say that two people believe the earth is flat. Person A goes on a journey, and on this journey he starts to notice things that seem to be at odds with his formerly held beliefs. He notices that tall objects slowly descend at the horizon line the farther they go, rather than abruptly fall off.

He takes a journey by boat, and sees there is a slight curve to the horizon.

None of which should be observable, if the earth is flat. So the idea that the earth is flat, is falsifiable. If the earth is NOT flat, then we would expect to see certain indications that this is true. We can make predictions, and test them.

From these observations, person A begins to reason the earth can not be flat. He has not yet circumvented the globe or seen it from space, but the quality of his opinion is better than the person's who is just sitting home and is yet firm in their belief.

At this point, due to the falsifiable nature of the claim the earth is flat, Person A is indeed in better position to understand what is more plausible. Eventually of course, he will come to know that yes, the earth is indeed not flat but an oblate spheroid. And that is the next part of this which needs to be understood- scientific knowledge is cumulative. it builds on what came before.

so that is why when science predicts how life could have come to be, it is more plausible than invoking a creator, which itself would need a creator.

and here is where logic comes into play.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That science has not yet developed the ability to create life is no grounds for declaring that it will not.
</div></div>

exactly.

if this were the case, there would be no scientific advancements that we could point to.

[jah_yout]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they are <span style="font-weight: bold">beginning to reproduce examples of how life could have begun</span>. you use the word &quot;plausible&quot; and that is the key to where your argument really collapses.

any scientific claim- such as the one that we don't need a god or original cause to explain why life is the way it is, is backed up by falsifiable evidence. falsifiable meaning to say that the ways the supposition could be wrong have been explored.

as opposed to the argument from incredulity- such as life is way too complex to have just randomly formed and other variations.

in the guts of such arguments, what is plausible is more earnestly met by science.</div></div>2

in other words...
they don't know...
just say it;
&quot;we don't know&quot;...you won't be less of a man for admitting they do not have the slightest clue how to produce life from inanimate materials;

we have had epic battles on this topic and we will not budge from our respective positions obviously, but i can admit that religion has many ficticious stories &amp; concepts about life and creation...
which is why i can also state that many non-faithers also have some ridiculous concepts on life &amp; creation;
some will just have to be big enough to admit that they are in no way close to mastering the question of how life began yet alone to produce it...
so the all-mighty scientists are still in the dark;

as far as the topic of &quot;god&quot; being a man or woman...
it is impossible to say if a &quot;creator&quot; could be simplified into categories which we know are normal for living creatures on our planet...
we simply do not know enough about life's origin to claim to know anything about &quot;god&quot;'s makeup

[jah_yout]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That science has not yet developed the ability to create life is no grounds for declaring that it will not.
</div></div>

exactly.

if this were the case, there would be no scientific advancements that we could point to. </div></div>


it is also no grounds for declaring that it will...

which you always imply

[jah_yout]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
very disingenuous...
if it is a mystery then how can one possibly just categorically dismiss any plausible explanation (for example 'intelligent design')...
atheists/ spontaneous originators also believe life started as 'magic' since they can't chart &amp; reproduce it...

</div></div>

well we have been over this ground, and they are beginning to reproduce examples of how life could have begun. you use the word &quot;plausible&quot; and that is the key to where your argument really collapses.

any scientific claim- such as the one that we don't need a god or original cause to explain why life is the way it is, is backed up by falsifiable evidence. falsifiable meaning to say that the ways the supposition could be wrong have been explored.

as opposed to the argument from incredulity- such as life is way too complex to have just randomly formed and other variations.

in the guts of such arguments, what is plausible is more earnestly met by science.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i always maintain that until they can produce life from non-life, they have no grounds to insist their theory is the correct one;
belittling others' theories without proving your theory does not make one more intelligent...
</div></div>

let us take a different example then, to show the flaw of this line of reasoning.

I will substitute a different noun to show how unreasonable your statement is.

&quot;i always maintain that until they can replace a human heart valve, they have no grounds to insist their theory that - a heart valve can be replaced- is possible;

belittling others' theories without proving your theory does not make one more intelligent...&quot;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">claiming science is 'closing in' on the great mystery changes nothing...
you know no more than the faithers &amp; this is the sad truth you must swallow;
</div></div>

you are wrong again. Johnny apparently knows quite a bit more than the faithers. in the sense that, for example let us say that two people believe the earth is flat. Person A goes on a journey, and on this journey he starts to notice things that seem to be at odds with his formerly held beliefs. He notices that tall objects slowly descend at the horizon line the farther they go, rather than abruptly fall off.

He takes a journey by boat, and sees there is a slight curve to the horizon.

None of which should be observable, if the earth is flat. So the idea that the earth is flat, is falsifiable. If the earth is NOT flat, then we would expect to see certain indications that this is true. We can make predictions, and test them.

From these observations, person A begins to reason the earth can not be flat. He has not yet circumvented the globe or seen it from space, but the quality of his opinion is better than the person's who is just sitting home and is yet firm in their belief.

At this point, due to the falsifiable nature of the claim the earth is flat, Person A is indeed in better position to understand what is more plausible. Eventually of course, he will come to know that yes, the earth is indeed not flat but an oblate spheroid. And that is the next part of this which needs to be understood- scientific knowledge is cumulative. it builds on what came before.

so that is why when science predicts how life could have come to be, it is more plausible than invoking a creator, which itself would need a creator.

and here is where logic comes into play. </div></div>


with all due respect...the flat earth argument is tired and pointless in this equation...

ascertaining the shape of the earth is a physically quantifiable value...
it can be tested and proven, especially with the right technology...
we now know that the earth is round, but we are not the first...
there were ancient civilizations that also knew the earth was round or would have never sailed to distant continents...

as far as the existence of greater forces or powers that had a hand in the manifestation of life on this planet, it is impossible at this time to prove without a doubt whether it just appeared spontaneously through random occurences, or came about by some form of intelligent fashioning;

we are just not there yet, and proof is the only thing which will satisfy...

you have not been able to produce life nor are you &quot;close&quot; to doing it, therefore it is possible that life appeared spontaneoulsy via a miraculous random accident, but you can not state that your position is somehow more feasible than those who harbor the possibility of intelligent design (not religion)...

<span style="font-weight: bold">also your claim that a creator would also need a creator contradicts your own logic</span>

for you state life could have sprung up by pure chance,...
why then could not a creator have sprung up by pure chance?

it could have spontaneously formed as a superior being which was able to fashion less complex beings, in the way we currently fiddle with living tissue, cells, viruses &amp; the like

[johnnycakes]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

&quot;it could have spontaneously formed as a superior being which was able to fashion less complex beings, in the way we currently fiddle with living tissue, cells, viruses &amp; the like&quot;


It seems more logical for everything to have started out in a more simple form and evolve to more complex forms as evolution has been shown to do.

Now that we are gaining the know-how to take apart and assemble living things and their components, we will start creating more complex creations as well.

The issue is not about how life began since neither those of faith nor can science come up with a definite answer aside from magic from the Faithers. Each has its beliefs that disagree with one another.

Science can't wait to find out how life on Earth began.
Faith would rather science did not make that discovery although it won't really matter.

I suspect when science proves at some point in time that an ammonia/acid molecule was animated by sea salt or some such and positively created life, the Faithers will say that it was God who did the mixing.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
in other words...
they don't know...
just say it;
&quot;we don't know&quot;...you won't be less of a man for admitting they do not have the slightest clue how to produce life from inanimate materials;

</div></div>

that's just it. I say that we don't know all the time. there's nothing there for me to admit as it is not my claim that we do know.

but I wouldn't say we are 'clueless' because we're not. we have a lot of very good hypotheses and theories, and they are being worked on. I say it is a matter of time until we can create life.

and then where will you be?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
we have had epic battles on this topic and we will not budge from our respective positions obviously, but i can admit that religion has many ficticious stories &amp; concepts about life and creation...
which is why i can also state that many non-faithers also have some ridiculous concepts on life &amp; creation;
some will just have to be big enough to admit that they are in no way close to mastering the question of how life began yet alone to produce it...
so the all-mighty scientists are still in the dark;
</div></div>

not sure why you are so intransigent. at every turn your examples have been introduced and then rebutted with evidence. i am not suggesting scientists are all mighty.

as for me, I would instantly accept the existence of God if provided proof.

as it is, I claim not to know.

and I can prove to you that your position can only result in absurdity. by logical conclusion. you will be forced to shrug and say you don't know and that nobody <span style="font-style: italic">can</span> know. but then, because you are being irrational, you will revert to the position there must be a God.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
we simply do not know enough about life's origin to claim to know anything about &quot;god&quot;'s makeup </div></div>

that's rich. but you can claim to know there is a creator!

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That science has not yet developed the ability to create life is no grounds for declaring that it will not.
</div></div>

exactly.

if this were the case, there would be no scientific advancements that we could point to. </div></div>


it is also no grounds for declaring that it will...

which you always imply </div></div>

I imply based off evidence. Science always progresses and solves problems. It is adaptable. Knowledge is cumulative. The History of Science is resplete with examples of science doing what is considered by many in the public to be &quot;impossible.&quot;

simply to say, that science has not yet discovered how to create life. <span style="font-style: italic">yet.</span>

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-weight: bold">also your claim that a creator would also need a creator contradicts your own logic</span>

for you state life could have sprung up by pure chance,...
why then could not a creator have sprung up by pure chance?
</div></div>

I'm not saying that is impossible. So then you will concede that life may have formed spontaneously?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
it could have spontaneously formed as a superior being which was able to fashion less complex beings, in the way we currently fiddle with living tissue, cells, viruses &amp; the like </div></div>

the main problem is that appeals to incredulity are not evidence for design.

i can show you, and we can duplicate, amino acid and proteins that spontaneously combine. from there, we can make a plausible prediction that this might be how life formed, beginning from simple cell membranes that let simple matter in but not out and over time formed more and more complex structures.

can you show me how superior beings might spontaneously form? what evidence do yo have that this is possible, besides conceptually stating it.

[quodlibet]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I may claim in rebuttal that the authority by which one may claim an extrinsic value or purpose to life may be as equally false as the claim denying it. </div></div>

that depends on the details of the claim.

if one claims that the intrinsic value of life was established extrinsically, then one would need to provide proofs.

however, to claim that life has intrinsic value, all one need to do is provide proof that there are people who present such intrinsic values without reference or claim of those values descending from an extrinsic source. of which I can say, there are plenty of examples. </div></div>

This is disingenuous at best. To claim inconsistent rules to prove the different sides of what seems to be oppositional theorems is itself a corruption of the validity of proof.

That is like using one set of physical rules to prove magnetic north, then inventing a separate set of rules to disprove magnetic south.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

the rules are consistent by which each claim is judged and proved, each hypothesis is tested, etc etc.

just because someone might not like the results of the tests, the process itself is not what is at contest.

there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the living of life itself can be its own point, and provide it's own justification for the pursuit of self evident truths, without the cultural imprint of whatever deity the person happens to be born under.

for example.

you may claim it is santa claus who gives your life purpose, you could believe it and live your life according to the Elf Code. However, the worth of your claim would be quickly reckoned.

[quodlibet]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
just because someone might not like the results of the tests, the process itself is not what is at contest.
...
</div></div>

I did not claim to like or dislike the result of any test, rather I simply pointed out that the objective of a test is to apply the same basis of judgement on different things in order to evaluate a fair result.

[rudemonk]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
just because someone might not like the results of the tests, the process itself is not what is at contest.
...
</div></div>

I did not claim to like or dislike the result of any test, rather I simply pointed out that the objective of a test is to apply the same basis of judgement on different things in order to evaluate a fair result. </div></div>

okay but why would you point that out? i'd say that is pretty much a given, and that is the benefit of the scientific method.

as I continue to point out in these discussions, it is the method that gives us the objective from which to judge.

findings must be repeatable, falsifiable, and testable, subject to peer review. and that is why arguments from design such as what jahyouth propose all fail.

[quodlibet]

Re: Was God a Man or Woman?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
okay but why would you point that out?</div></div>

Please see #1214184 - 03/06/11 02:28 PM of this thread.