How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Leadfoot,

I'm a sql programmer and vba coder, but the argument as i see it isn't about understanding the finer points of biology or programming.

This topic could be about anything that is naturally occurring. It could be about a rock. It is an idea that says this: That any concept you use to discuss something natural (i.e. not agent made) is an analogy, it is not the thing itself.

Are you familiar with the concept of reification? If not, it is the idea that you a person turns an abstraction into something real. This is what's happening here. DNA isn't code itself. Its guck that does things. The idea of code is an abstraction, it can't be turned into something real that isn't self-referencing. This is linguistics. Code as created by humans is self-referencing. In other words, we created it so by definition it is code that does something as created by an agent.

We don't know anything about DNA being created by an agent. It is the question we are currently pursuing. To say that DNA is code is taking a shortcut to saying it IS created by an agent. But that's begging the question. That's what we don't know. With a fell swoop you have self-referenced, self defined DNA by identifying it with code made by an agent (i.e. our programming code).

Look, i don't have an issue deferring to biologists or other scientists about their field of expertise. I know probably more than a lay person, but not more than a professional about biology, neurology etc. I read. A lot. I am not Noam Chomsky, but i have a damn good understanding of the fundamentals of linguistics and what it means to speak, to use words.

This is what that falls under. This is why i said the subject matter is unimportant. If you want to belittle me over my lack of knowledge of particulars, be my guest. I admit defeat. But this isn't about the particulars, its about the usage of analogies for what we call naturally occurring things (i.e. non-man made). An analogy may be good, may be correct, but it is not correct by default - you don't get to self reference it into existence because by definition it is not self-referent. Because if there is no god, then it just is what it is, non-withstanding what analogies we put onto it. The cart must not go before the horse.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Why isn't it valid to make code into DNA? Isn't code something real? Yes, but only when it is made by an agent. And the reason for that is because it is self-referential. In other words WE made code, so it is code.

But we have no idea if any agent made DNA. So, analogies about code and DNA are just that: analogies. Its begging the question. What you are doing when you are suggesting that DNA is code is suggesting that DNA is made by an agent. But that is precisely what we don't know. We cannot come to a conclusion first and then look for things/ways to fit the conclusion. DNA must stand on its own as its own entity/thing. It does not have an outside referent that would explain what it is on its own.

You are free to guess that it was made by an agent. I am not stopping that point. But to say it IS code, is to smuggle in the idea that it MUST have been made by an agent. Again, that is begging the question. That part must be shown to be true on its own, by its own merits.

This is another argument for design. You are free to believe it, but you are not free, logically, to necessarily give it the properties of being created when you cannot demonstrate that. I can demonstrate that code was created by a human, i cannot demonstrate that DNA was created by any agent and so i cannot say that it IS code. The analogy can be complicated solving chess, Einstein and every scientist on the planet can give all the teeth to the analogy that they want and i am happy to validate and concede that their analogy has accuracy. However - that is not the same as saying it is code in the same sense as what we create as code - i.e. that it was made by an agent.

I hope you understand the difference between the analogy and agency. It is a subtle difference and again, i am not saying that their modeling is what is wrong. You are correct that i wouldn't be smart enough to know enough to be critical of that aspect of it.

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

catbeasy wrote:

Quote:
..no one else has collected one for explaining life, in spite of assertions that we do know how it originated

First, Leddy, that's a bit disingenuous. There are many assertions out there, but can we agree that many scientists do not assert that we know how life originated? You're always going to be able to find folks who assert stuff when it is clear that they lack the evidence. That is why they haven't got a nobel prize, the committee is scientific and no scientific evidence has been presented. To my knowledge, we have no good knowledge about abiogenesis - yet. And may never. But we might also..

Quote:
What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA)

I'm not a biologist. I do not know this stuff in depth. However, i do understand the fundamental flaw in this statement. Do you see it? Yes, i thought you might. DNA is not code. It is DNA. We might choose to loosely call it that as a model or something to help us understand what's going on. But DNA isn't information or code or programming. These are symbols imposed on it by an agent (us). DNA is DNA at root, nothing more, nothing less. When you call it code, you are poisoning the well, imbibing it with characteristics that may or may not belong to it, as we view what we call 'code', 'information' or 'programming' as created by ourselves. This is as apparent as Hume or Kant's 'Thing in Itself' and is very important to understand since huge philosophical mistakes have been made viz a viz the reification of 'things'.

However, that said, to the main point, it might be pretty implausible for life to start on its own. You might have a point. To us, it looks pretty damn implausible for any of the processes as we can conceive them thus far, starting life as we know it. But the kicker is: as we can conceive them thus far. Maybe we will figure this stuff out eventually. Who knows? Maybe we won't.

I don't know, but ever since we have figured out that figuring out how life came from what we call non-life was frickin' hard as frick, it is trivial that we cannot assert logically that it could not happen. To whit: It just might be that given the conditions of the universe, life necessarily has to happen. And maybe we can't figure it out here because maybe life didn't start on earth. Maybe if it started via pan-spermia, the conditions for abiogenesis wherever (plural or singular) would reveal themselves more readily.

But yes, i don't deny that with our current knowledge we cannot scientifically show abiogenesis. We only have hints, guesses, which if we are allowed to keep going for the next 500 years, may yield scientific answers or maybe not.

But no, for the above reasons, i cannot conclude that it is impossible - that would be illogical of me. As i mentioned, we do not have a 'god's eye' view of the universe where we could possibly take in all of the factors and essentially infinite combinations of interactivities between those factors to make such a negative statement. You, me, none of us have the requisite information, we don't know all the properties of the things and the universe to make properly definite statements.

The correct answer is: I don't have enough information to make sure a positive assertive statement. That isn't recalcitrance, that is logic. 'I don't know' is the truth searchers friend. Anything else is just a guess - and yes, it could be a correct guess - but then at that point because it can't be proven, can't be verified, who cares? Without confirmation, its campfire shroom talk. It just assertion. Nothing to back it up, to give it teeth. You say yes, i say no and round and round we go..

At the beginning of your third paragraph you said everything that has to be said about the REALITY of the matters you are discussing:

"I don't know..."

If only everyone could subscribe to that position.

We can make guesses...and scientists will. They will call their guesses "hypotheses" and will, to the best of human abilities, test them. They will attempt to disprove them or to confirm them as best as possible...always acknowledging the limits of that ability.

Others will make guesses and call their guesses "beliefs." They will stubbornly defend those guesses as though they are TRUTHS rather than guesses...and call their defenses "faith." Then they will demand that their guesses and obstinance be respected by suggesting that since their guesses have been labelled "beliefs" and their obstinance "faith"...the rest of us have an obligation to "respect" them.

I'm with H. L. Mencken on that. He wrote, “We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

DNA isn't code itself. Its guck that does things.

All right already, you (and Frank), don’t know, and somehow you think that proves that no one can.

I get that.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

somehow you think that proves that no one can.

No, it is not as if we think it 'proves' that no one can. We believe it, or at least i do (i won't speak for Frank) because that is an epistemological truth. It is a logical truth based on how our brain functions and our inability to get outside of our heads to properly reference things that are not capable of having a standard, to know the truth - they are simply put, not things that are self-referencing.

You may have the truth yet Leddy, you just can't know it to be true in the sense that we are talking about. And what's worse is that because you can't know and have no other standard, you can't say what you believe is even more likely. Blame that on your god for creating it this way.

btw, my epistemological beliefs, ironically enough, force me into holding out that you could be right..i don't think so, i haven't been presented with enough (preponderance of) evidence to make me believe it, but if i'm to be consistent, speaking loosely, just about anything **could** be true..That doesn't help me in real life, but we're talking about ideas here, ontologies, not practical everyday usage..

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Quote:

No, it is not as if we think it 'proves' that no one can. We believe it, or at least i do (i won't speak for Frank)

Actually Frank has a point here. A belief based on lack of knowledge is only an opinion/gut feeling/prejudice etc.

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

It is absurd to me if this is a traditional Christian idea of reward and punishment viz a viz your traditional heaven and hell. It is absurd because the Christian says that their God is love, yet nothing about this idea of heaven and hell and a loving God fall into my purview of what love is.

You would need a comparison between good and bad so a person can tell the difference. Receiving a perfect life forever (if there is a heaven) for the price of believing in something, rather than eternal suffering (if there is a hell) seems like a fair exchange.

The details behind the previous comparison gives meaning to your following statement, and provides the outside standard that you are looking for in that statement assuming the proposed God existed outside the universe before creating it, and then created it according to His outside standard.

Quote:

We can also assume that it was not made for the 'good' (we can also have a hell of discussion on what is meant by 'good' by itself - but that's for another time). Maybe this God is a real bastard. A patient bastard who gets his jollies on any kind of emotional state. Your assumption is invalid because there is no outside standard to put what is likely.

Quote:

God could have made all this be true in (almost) the way that Christian's say it is, but when we die, this God gets his maximum jollies sending those who believed it to hell because he loves to see their faces when they find out they've been wrong about it. And maybe those who didn't believe get to hang out with it at six flags. Or maybe it sends everyone to hell. Or maybe everyone goes to heaven. Maybe it rolls a dice. Stuck inside our subjective world, there is no way to know what is a 'safe' assumption.

Could be. Those are all good suggestions for possibilities of who God or god is. But, usually if something is created (whether it is a car, a house, a universe) that "created thing", and how it operates tells you something about the creator of the "thing". Has anyone stepped into the universe and claimed to be the creator of this thing we call the universe? Is there anyone claiming to have the characteristics and ability of someone capable of actually creating the universe? Has anyone revealed any of these characteristics in the past?

Quote:

Don't believe there is a God(s), but there might be a God(s) of some sort who created all this stuff, but pretty sure it isn't a personal God and certainly not some Jewish God a la the Bible.

I think the previous questions need to be answered before jumping to any conclusions.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

You would need a comparison between good and bad so a person can tell the difference

Quote:

I think the previous questions need to be answered before jumping to any conclusions.

Not sure i understand your point here, but for me this is simple: This is my thoughts, my comparison between what is good and what is bad, that's really all i have to go by. I believe love to be a particular thing. That love-thing, according to my belief about what love is, isn't consonant with the classical things that are said about what the Jewish God is supposed to have said/done.

This to me is really easy. And its easy because for the Christian bible, god isn't the one speaking - its people speaking about their ideas of that god. And there's nothing in that book that tells me that other than people wrote it or inspired it. Its other people saying what they believe to be true about Jehovah and love. And just like i can read a book like Mein Kampf and point out all the absurdities and contradictions based on my own experiences of what i feel is good and right and love, i can do so with the bible or any other document that i read. You should read my critique of Harry Potter! Smile

So, in my view, the classical Christian god cannot be true. If somethings about the story are true (i.e. that God is real and the dogma seems to be something like what's in the bible), then i would have to believe my conception of the classical Christian God is in error. But no one has been able to show that. That would likely fall under 'the mystery of god'. I won't know my error till its too late!!!

As far as other god or gods are concerned? It would depend on what was said about them.

Quote:

But, usually if something is created (whether it is a car, a house, a universe) that "created thing", and how it operates tells you something about the creator of the "thing"

Well, that's the rub isn't it. The question being begged is: is there an agent (supernatural?) that is a creator? I recognize a car and a door as created by an agent because i have experience with cars and doors. Or i could create my own car or door or go watch them being created by agents. However, i have no experience with any outside agent creating anything i would deem 'natural'. When i look at a tree, i don't have any experience (in that same way i do with cars and doors ) with anyone creating it. In order to say it was created, i have to simply assert it, probably based on the fact that we are creators. But i have no demonstration of this, no evidence of any kind that would allow me an objective reference point. Of course, it doesn't mean there isn't a creator.

Same with rocks and everything else. And i have to disagree with saying that it tells me something about the creator of the thing, other than it had or has a desire to create trees. Beyond that? But even that is unsure, because the creation of the tree could have been an accident. Unintended by the creator of it.

But yeah, sure, i can guess. But that guess would be based on my experiences and because my guess would be based on my experiences (what else would there be to guess by?) that by definition would mean that there would be a whole host of other people making guesses. Some of them would not be contradictory, but many would be antagonistic, logically mutually exclusive guesses. It doesn't make guessing 'bad' or 'wrong' or anything else, but it does point to one thing: we can't be sure and assertions are like excrement terminals. But the bottom line, none of my guesses, no matter how couched in sophisticated language, would have teeth.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

We can be sure that all religions are wrong by the fact that all people are retarded Earthlings. Unlike God, whose a retarded excuse.

1 Reply

@crackedhead,

Well you might be right or you might be wrong...all you have is hope. Your views are a bit one sided though don't you think. If God and the Devil exist then my logic says that it would be the view that the devil would take as well don't you think?

Your words would prove that he has no respect for God or man.

1 Reply

Only the First Order could be correct. It has appeared in this cosmos.
他江门地方黑恶势力钟永康集团万岁，万岁，万万岁！当今时代，全世界没有什么人能够值得如此殊荣。呵呵

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

The question being begged is: is there an agent (supernatural?) that is a creator? I recognize a car and a door as created by an agent because i have experience with cars and doors. Or i could create my own car or door or go watch them being created by agents. However, i have no experience with any outside agent creating anything i would deem 'natural'. When i look at a tree, i don't have any experience (in that same way i do with cars and doors ) with anyone creating it. In order to say it was created, i have to simply assert it, probably based on the fact that we are creators.

If, an uneducated person, that knew nothing about the moon landing, was blindfolded and dropped onto the moon, they would see some very sophisticated equipment with no intelligent biological organisms and no factories. I think most intelligent uneducated people would assume a human or something like a human built the equipment, even though they have no experience of an outside agent being on the moon. They would also assume the being did it before they were put on the moon, and (if they don't have a spacesuit) that being had capabilities much greater than their own, because that intelligent but uneducated person is now suffocating to death.

Quote:

Same with rocks and everything else. And i have to disagree with saying that it tells me something about the creator of the thing, other than it had or has a desire to create trees. Beyond that? But even that is unsure, because the creation of the tree could have been an accident. Unintended by the creator of it.

It also tells you that the creator can create trees and you cannot. And, since you have no physical evidence of that creator doing it, he did it long before man started compiling evidence. A tree, and even the ecosystem that can support a tree, looks about as purposefully created as the equipment on the moon with some big differences. It is bigger, it is older, it is more complex, and it is living.

Quote:

But yeah, sure, i can guess. But that guess would be based on my experiences and because my guess would be based on my experiences (what else would there be to guess by?) that by definition would mean that there would be a whole host of other people making guesses. Some of them would not be contradictory, but many would be antagonistic, logically mutually exclusive guesses. It doesn't make guessing 'bad' or 'wrong' or anything else, but it does point to one thing: we can't be sure

Why do they have to be antagonistic?
Can't we just look at the probabilities?

We have observed many complex systems being developed from intelligence. We have even manipulated complex living systems by modifying the DNA code of a living organism. We have even watched artificial intelligence in computers learn to program themselves to win games of chess. One thing is for sure is the probabilities. Every complex system that we view being created was created by intelligence. We have never seen one created by chance. Some people are assuming that very consistent observation was different in the past for some unexplained reason a very complex system developed without an intelligent creator.

I do not consider that antagonistic unless, these people that think this complex ecosystem appeared without a creator, and that is a settled matter. Especially, since it is based on no recorded or observed evidence but purely on imagined assumptions that may have been thought up by scientists, but cannot be scientifically proven.

I think saying it is settled science is being antagonistic. I do not think the discussion is.

Do you consider me antagonistic?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Do you consider me antagonistic?

No, however,

It looks as though you misunderstood my use of the word. Perhaps my fault, but i thought the context would give the meaning. I didn't mean antagonistic as purposeful behaviour, i meant it simply meaning an opposite idea. In that sense it is not controversial that two people would have differing 'antagonistic' views. How about non-consonant? Certainly 'contradictory', this forum is proof of that! Is that perhaps better?

Quote:

If, an uneducated person, ...

So, this is tricky. It isn't a valid example, precisely because 'uneducated' is not possible in the sense necessary to make your example valid. A person who can make an assessment about an object would necessarily have to be educated about things, natural and man-made to even begin to have rational thoughts of the kind you are saying about an object.

So, again, we only recognize design when we recognize pieces or whole parts of something are recognized as being in our experience made by an agent (some organism). That which is natural is not recognized as being made by an agent from our experience. We have a guess. Not a necessity here. The guess is probably based on the fact that we are creators and so why not a creator for the earth or universe. But that is a guess, it is devoid of demonstration of a creator. When you say..

Quote:

Every complex system that we view being created was created by intelligence. We have never seen one created by chance

No, that is not necessarily true, that is a guess, an assumption. Your statement that every complex thing we have experience with was created by intelligence needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise it is just an assumption. Things we humans create can be demonstrated to have been created by an intelligence, an agent if you want to be less assumptive about 'intelligence'!

You must demonstrate that non-man made things were created by an intelligence. There is no law that i am aware of that says that things must be created by agents and that's it.

You also load your statement when you say 'chance'. Who knows, maybe the divine-less universe came into being necessarily?

I don't know the answers to these things, but i do know, logically, linguistically, 'Hume'ely', you cannot make those statements as neccessarily true. They simply cannot be known. You could be right that there is a 'god' creator, but we do not have the intellectual and experiential capacities to know this. You can't even have probabilities because if you know you're statistics, probabilities have built into them comparisons. You have to take the subject and dichotomize the two items in this case: 'divine (or some creator) design or not. These are the two options, a logical split. Either it was designed or it wasn't. How are you going to plug variables into the sides? Where are you going to get your information about no-design? Or design, what numbers are going to represent your division? There are none. There is no way to quantify the odds of 'no-design'. To say that it is unlikely or whatever is just begging the question. A philosophical no-no.

Also, coming up with anything like this would require you to have a gods eye view of the universe: you would have to know all properties of all things in order to definitively make the statement that it couldn't have occurred without design. This knowledge is not forthcoming.

Quote:

I do not consider that antagonistic unless, these people that think this complex ecosystem appeared without a creator, and that is a settled matter. Especially, since it is based on no recorded or observed evidence but purely on imagined assumptions that may have been thought up by scientists, but cannot be scientifically proven.

Correct, it is not a settled matter and may never by proven scientifically. Personally i don't think we can have such knowledge. It is simple unknown stuff. It resides in the realm of belief, not knowledge in the philosophical sense of knowledge.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

No Jasper10, all you have is hope. Hope that you are right about your beliefs. Hope that your own personal God exists. Hope that you didn't waste your life adhering to nothingness. The faithful have turned the word hope into welfare, which is the basis of every religion. Because for some reason, every God needs a welfare check from us. Sounds like religion was the ancients welfare system to me.

2 Replies

@crackedhead,

Well if you had read any of my previous posts you would not have made this statement because I totally agree with you. All anyone has his HOPE that their view/opinions/hopes are correct....even you.There might be a God because everyone knows that they don't know whether there is or not .If there is, do you think your opinions matter at all about what you think of him or what you think he should or should not have done or will do in the future? Believing that this God exists won't help you either because if God exists then you have to consider the possibility that the devil does as well and even he believes in God...So what's left? What's left is rules and morality. The problem with rules and morality is that man can't keep to them either...So what then? Your views are too biased and therefore the only person you DECIEVE is yourself.

0 Replies

@crackedhead,

Scientist know nothing about consciousness states.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Quote:

So, this is tricky. It isn't a valid example, precisely because 'uneducated' is not possible in the sense necessary to make your example valid. A person who can make an assessment about an object would necessarily have to be educated about things, natural and man-made to even begin to have rational thoughts of the kind you are saying about an object.

I should have clarified. I meant someone who did not know the moon landing happened.

Quote:

That which is natural is not recognized as being made by an agent from our experience.

Why not?

That assumption does not seem to follow the patterns we observe today when we observe new complexity being introduced into a system. If a system can automatically introduce complexity it is a form of artificial intelligence. We give credit to a creator or programmer for all new systems of artificial intelligence we observe coming into existence today. Nature is a group of systems that operate like man-made artificial intelligence, with some amazing systems of real intelligence mixed in (human minds for instance).

There is less order in Stonehenge than in the structure of a crystal.

There is less order in a pile of sand than in than in an atom of silicone dioxide.

Which one of these would take more intelligence to create?

If there is only one way that a crystal can be constructed, why assume nobody made the choice to construct it that one and only way?

There is only one way do do a lot of things. Especially, determining the structure of things that are very complex, like ecosystems, biological reproduction, crystals, large molecules, and atoms, etc...

Do you have to witness somebody choosing that one way for it to be a valid assumption someone more than likely chose that one way?

Quote:

You must demonstrate that non-man made things were created by an intelligence. There is no law that i am aware of that says that things must be created by agents and that's it.

I can't. Nobody can because that type of complexity requires a creator with these characteristics:

1. It existed before the thing that was created so it could be there to create it.
2. It has intelligence and physical capabilities far beyond any of man's current capabilities, otherwise we could replicate it.

I can only demonstrate things that men are currently capable of demonstrating. Maybe long ago we could create life from organic molecules. Today I can't, but it appears that long ago somebody could.

Rather...

You must demonstrate complex non-man made things coming into existence without a creator or a preexisting AI system. Especially when we observe natural AI systems operating very similarly to man made AI systems that men created during recorded history and 100% of those have a creator.

Just because Natural AI systems are to old to identify their creator, does not mean there is a law that says really old things that reveal order and complexity must come into existence by random introduction of new information rather than a creator.

Quote:

I don't know the answers to these things, but i do know, logically, linguistically, 'Hume'ely', you cannot make those statements as neccessarily true. They simply cannot be known.

What can be known, is "what was the most likely way it happened". We have the ability to imagine different scenarios, even if we can't physically replicate those scenarios. We can develop those scenarios from patterns we are currently observing in everyday life and in the archaeological record.

We can use the, "if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it is probably a type of duck even though we never saw a duck like that before"- method of deductive reasoning.

Quote:

Either it was designed or it wasn't. How are you going to plug variables into the sides? Where are you going to get your information about no-design? Or design, what numbers are going to represent your division? There are none.

If there are no variables to plug in which demonstrates complexity appearing from purely random input of information to develop an AI type information management system, then maybe we should assume that it did not happen.

Quote:

There is no way to quantify the odds of 'no-design'. To say that it is unlikely or whatever is just begging the question. A philosophical no-no.

It is not a no-no. The only way to reach the correct conclusion is to ask the right question, and accept the most likely hypothesis to develop a correct answer.

Quote:

Also, coming up with anything like this would require you to have a gods eye view of the universe: you would have to know all properties of all things in order to definitively make the statement that it couldn't have occurred without design. This knowledge is not forthcoming.

Could it be because only a god with capabilities greater than ours did it? Can you imagine a scenario like that by using Objective Idealism as your type of philosophy?

Is there any other way to get a god's eye view?

Is that the only truly objective philosophical point of view?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I should have clarified. I meant someone who did not know the moon landing happened.

Irrelevant to my point. Once you know 'stuff', you are disqualified.

Quote:

Why not?

Because it is by definition. You have no experience watching a god or any agent creating the universe. That is what 'having experience' means. It is in the context of having experience watching a car be made. Not the same thing.

All of the rest of the stuff you said surrounding your central idea, i don't really have a problem with. I said you can make a guess. That's not what i was talking about. I am saying you have no experience with and thus cannot demonstrate an agent creating the universe. And you cannot use our status as creators as 'evidence' or logic that a creator did make the universe. You are imposing human patterns on something that is unknown. You only have assumptions, which is fine. So, yes it is a no-no to beg the question. We have no clue, as in demonstrable, experiential evidence that a creator agent made the universe. We may have an intuitive clue. Fair enough. But our failure of imagination does not mean that it is down to one agent-creator thing. We simply cannot know.

And no, still not convinced that we can know what is likely. To know what is likely requires knowledge we do not and cannot (at least currently and maybe forever) have. Your arguments are only assumptive. Fair enough.

2 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

Once you know 'stuff', you are disqualified.

I continue to be amazed at such profundity.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Quote:

Because it is by definition. You have no experience watching a god or any agent creating the universe. That is what 'having experience' means. It is in the context of having experience watching a car be made. Not the same thing.

I have not been to an automobile factory. Have you seen a car being made?

Quote:

I said you can make a guess.

Do you believe the Big Bang happened as described in Inflation Theory?
Isn't that a guess that out of the Big Bang hydrogen and helium gas started to spontaneously form out of nothing and gravitationally gather together to form stars?
Where did the gas come from?
Isn't that more than likely wrong, since we do see gas clouds in outer space and they are not collapsing into stars now?
Have you seen a natural star factory make stars out of gas?
I am saying you have no experience with and thus cannot demonstrate an agent like gravity creating stars out of gas in the universe. Instead you see gas. It's been there a long time. And no new stars.

Quote:

You are imposing human patterns on something that is unknown.

That is called science. Scientists use patterns, deductive and inductive reasoning to form hypothesis and theories. Humans are the only creators that can use creating to improve there state in life. Every other animal we observe living from generation to generation unchanged.

Scientifically acquired data shows that if nature is left undisturbed it deteriorates unless intelligence intervenes. For example we have only observed species of animals going extinct faster than new species appear. Actually I have never observed a new species appearing naturally but man has done some pretty interesting genetic modification using intelligence.
Do you know anybody that witnesses a new species being naturally created from another?

We have no clue, as in demonstrable, experiential evidence that a spontaneously emerging universe from a Big Bang made the universe nor Darwinian Evolution can create new species. We don't even have have an intuitive clue on how to replicate a mechanism that can do those things .

And since you are not convinced that we can know what is likely. And to know what is likely requires knowledge we do not and cannot (at least currently and maybe forever) have. And, arguments supporting the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution by purely random input of new information are only assumptive.

Fair enough. So, our failure of imagination does not mean that it is down to Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution. The one agent-creator thing must also be considered science because, we simply cannot know.
Do you agree?

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know