Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[articulett]

To assume that there was an invisible magical "man" there... or to assume that we don't understand yet, but we can only know by following evidence and not making assumptions about supernatural entities?

 

[arthwollipot]

To assume that what we can observe actually describes the way things really are, or to assume that things are other than the way we observe them?

 

[jj]

You KNOW!!!

Please enlighten the world with your KNOWLEDGE concerning the initiation of life on Earth.

I have made no claim, asserted no specific origin. You claim otherwise, and you have appear to have sinned against your fellow man.

I hope that you will quickly repent, for your own good.

 

[articulett]

It's theists who claim to know "divine secrets".

Atheists don't believe there are any.

Why do theists reason so poorly and hear what isn't there?

 

[wollery]

Prove that a creator was needed.

Prove that a creator was not needed.


Can you really not see that this is the same demand?

That was EXACTLY my point. Thank you for admitting the demand is identical.
Now the question is, which position is logical to adopt. It seems extremely needless to assume the presence of something that has no reason to assume it was needed in the first place.

I don't need to assume fairies when discussing gravity, because the assumption doesn't add to the understanding, obeservations and hypotheses.

Actually, they're not the same demand.

All that is required to prove that a creator is not needed is to show a mechanism by which it could have occurred without a creator. This has been done. It's the same as disproving irreducible complexity by providing a possible evolutionary sequence by which the supposedly irreducibly complex structure could arise. It doesn't have to be the actual evolutionary sequence that occurred, just a sequence which is possible.

It is therefore not the same proposition as proving that there wasn't a creator. This is most likely an impossible thing to prove. Just as proving that there was a creator is most likely impossible.

Proving a lack of existence is not possible, but proving the lack of need for existence is possible.

 

[RandFan]

I'm on his "ignore" too, and as you know I'm usually walking on eggs around theists. Radrook is odd. Insult him, and it's fine. Insult his God and he puts you on ignore. Go figure.

That does surprise me.

BTW, to be fair I'm not above arrogance myself and I've been painted into a corner. Damn ego.

 

[RandFan]

Well, it's not even the time it takes. Rather, it's the lack of mechanistic explanation which kills ID. I use "Poof" to describe their argument, because to an IDer the mechanism is unimportant. While to the scientist, the mechanism is the point.

I concede that it is a better point. An omnipotent god can do anything but HOW does he do it?

Thanks

 

[RandFan]

Prove that a creator was not needed.

Can you really not see that this is the same demand?

There was a time that humans could not synthisize carbon.
There was a time when the structure of DNA was not known.
There was a time when the structure of matter was not known.

Some people relying on their own ignorance believed the answers not knowable.

We keep answering questions without the help of god. Science does that. The gaps for god to hide are shrinking daily.


Jarome,

Prove that the matrix is not needed.
Prove that leprechauns are not needed.
Prove that aliens are not needed.

It's a pointless excercise.

Napolean: "How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"

Laplace: "I did not need to make such an assumption"

 

[RandFan]

Jerome,

You are ignoring a lot of points and questions.

I'm not buying it Jerome.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Again, I will ask, what is a simpler assumption. To assume there was someone needed to start it off (which we have never observed) or to assume that there is nothing there that was needed?

Neither have we observed an initiation of life sans previous life. Both are assumptions based upon individual human desires, not evidences.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All that is required to prove that a creator is not needed is to show a mechanism by which it could have occurred without a creator. This has been done.

Please, you should present your evidence of a mechanism which creates life sans life to science. You surely will will a Nobel Prize or two!

 

[joobz]

Neither have we observed an initiation of life sans previous life. Both are assumptions based upon individual human desires, not evidences.

Yes, they both involve assumptions, but one assumption is mechanistically simpler than the other and therefore more scientifically sound. At least until data comes allong which proves that assumption wrong. One lacks an active partcipant, making it a simpler mechanism. In science, we always simplify the system and ONLY include complexity when needed. That's the whole point. The assumption of a creator doesn't help lead to mechanisms nor does it ease the calculations and experimentation required. IT ceases inquiry.

Assumptions aren't bad. Indeed, they are needed. You must, however, always be willing to test them. Provide a test of your assumption (Which the data doesn't need), and then I'll give ID a consideration.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There was a time that humans could not synthisize carbon.
There was a time when the structure of DNA was not known.
There was a time when the structure of matter was not known.

Some people relying on their own ignorance believed the answers not knowable.

We keep answering questions without the help of god. Science does that. The gaps for god to hide are shrinking daily.

The extrapolation of the facts you are presenting here to make your final statement is untenable. Having knowledge about our natural world does not preclude an initiator of life on Earth. Your presentation here is as fallacious as stating that because we do not have knowledge of certain mechanisms than there must be god.

 

[joobz]

The extrapolation of the facts you are presenting here to make your final statement is untenable. Having knowledge about our natural world does not preclude an initiator of life on Earth. Your presentation here is as fallacious as stating that because we do not have knowledge of certain mechanisms than there must be god.

Yet, your assumed initiator wasn't needed in any of the processes we discovered. It's fallacious of you to say, "well, in this instance, it's needed."
Another example: I've never seen worm hole travel, but if it is possible, I will assume that it must not violate thermoodynamics. Why do I assume this, because nothing observed has ever violated thermodynamics. As such, If we were ever to design a worm hole traveling device, we would have to assume thermo was applicable. If something came along to prove that it wasn't valid, then we would adjust that assumption.

Until something comes along that proves we MUST assume a creator and since nothing has ever been observed which points to one, I will operate on the assumption that life did not have one.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Until something comes along that proves we MUST assume a creator and since nothing has ever been observed which points to one, I will operate on the assumption that life did not have one.

Curious, has anything been observed that proves there MUST NOT be an initiator?

See, this argument is little more than personal preference couched with an arrogance of certainty.

 

[joobz]

Curious, has anything been observed that proves there MUST NOT be an initiator?

See, this argument is little more than personal preference couched with an arrogance of certainty.

please actually read my posts. We can't have a conversation, if you do not participate. There is information there explaining the methods involved in scientific understanding. Of most importance is how we make assumptions and justify them.

To leave off your argument, "Curious, has anything been observed that proves there must not be an initiator to the iniator?"

 

[RandFan]

The extrapolation of the facts you are presenting here to make your final statement is untenable. Having knowledge about our natural world does not preclude an initiator of life on Earth. Your presentation here is as fallacious as stating that because we do not have knowledge of certain mechanisms than there must be god.

No fallacy Jerome. Nothing in my post precludes an "initiator". I'm simply demonstrating that in the past many people thought certain areas of knowledge were unanswerable because they were the realm of god. However, as has been shown time and time again, we don't need god to answer questions about the natural world.

There simply is no need to assume god.

 

[RandFan]

Curious, has anything been observed that proves there MUST NOT be an initiator?

See, this argument is little more than personal preference couched with an arrogance of certainty.

No. Just parsimony.

Has anything been observed that proves that there MUST NOT be fairies and leprechauns?

 

[RandFan]

Jarome,

Prove that the matrix is not needed.
Prove that leprechauns are not needed.
Prove that aliens are not needed.

You sure ignore a lot of points and questions Jarome.

Can you prove that a computer simulation is not needed?

 

[RandFan]

Napolean: "How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"

Laplace: "I did not need to make such an assumption"

This is a real world example of what I'm talking about. Laplace did not need to assume god to answer questions about the world. There was no "god did it" in his equations.