Why do so many theists think you must believe in abiogenesis if you don't believe in a god?

a reply to: EasternShadow

I don't need to prove anything to defend my lack of belief in your claims of a god.
You have zero verifiable evidence so I don't believe you. And yes, snake oil salesman is appropriate when you have nothing to verify your claims.
Come back to me with some evidence and I'm open to believing you but until then I'll just chuckle in amusement as I do about goblins and elves etc.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Agreed, but take this thread alone, there are some theists who haven't even attempted to answer my question in the OP.
Personally I have no beef with anyone believing any unverifiable claims, from gods to goblins and ghosts, but when they try to argue that I must believe in something I have to challenge it because it is ridiculous.

There are lots of unverifiable claims in the world.


Are you familiar with modern cosmology in physics? What some of the theories are of ontology? Things are fairly strange...things like ghosts etc start to seem more like future science..object memory cross dimensional entanglement etc...

It's not always about unverifiable claims. It's about what could it be. How do we find this out. What are logical possibilities and probabilities.

a reply to: luthier

I don't disagree with anything you said there but I don't believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe in goblins.
Obviously if you do then good luck, but I'm glad you are not peddling god claims as fact like a snake oil salesman.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I don't have a belief or non belief in God's. I have a disbelief in scripture being literal historical fact.

There is no luck needed. Just an open mind. Do we create new species in forced evolution? Van we genetically engineer? Do physicists say we can eventually create things out of matter conversion?

Just because we can't currently explain something does not prove it doesn't exist or that it can't be discovered and shouldn't be researched.

Now do you do three circles and clap your hands and hope God answers probably not. If it somehow creates a placebo that works is it useful?

I am not a true believer by any stretch but panthiesm, deism, animism, spinosaism, resonate with me. Still an agnostic but I believe that is part of being science minded.

a reply to: luthier

Interesting perspective
I don't believe in anything really, I of course keep an open mind to the potential of anything from gods to goblins, but as far as belief goes, nope, not in my bag of tools.
I'm happy for people to believe whatever they like, but I will always challenge any attempts to portray belief as fact.
...and yes, physics is the way forward when investigating woo claims.

EDIT
Sorry, can't let you get away with this...

originally posted by: luthier I don't have a belief or non belief in God's.

So you are the same as me then, you lack belief in gods? You do not believe in any gods?
Don't be coy now lol

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

There is also a danger in believing in old science is all science. It destroyed people to look into the electron microscope and find some of the woo people were right. Matter wasn't what they thought.

Now we are entering an Era where a simulation, a holagram, a multiverse, a multi dimensional reality exist. For me that makes me wonder what a ghost may be. What is quantum entanglement over dimensions. In boson and string theory we have multiple dimesions. Possibly living in superposition. Woowoo

Edit. I don't believe or disbelieve in any possible gods.

My feeling is its all god. Like panthiesm. Possibly pandeism. Like an advanced being can create solar systems leave and die.

But I dont live my life believing this. I am talking about philosophy.

a reply to: luthier

Dude I'm into science and how processes are explained. Your talk is perfectly rational, I only challenge people who claim woo to be fact, like many theists do, you know the ones "I know god is real" and BS like that which they spout out.
It is lame and worthy of challenging every time.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I get that. I really only judge when they say you must believe this or you are doomed so i can judge and mistreat you. If that is what you mean I understand. It's not beneficial to hold back society with a personal belief. Like gay people can't adopt kids.

a reply to: luthier

Agreed
On the gay people adopting thing, that's not been a problem in the UK for some years now. I'd rather see a happy child in a loving family than hurting and lonely in a childrens care home.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Let me use an example as a metaphor. Birth control was given for free through medical insurance. Conservatives pushed back saying it's your own responsibility and some people still to this day don't believe in using it.

The result was a huge decline in abortions. Conservatives were willing to push back even with that data and say it's our belief it's either your responsibility or in some cases the religion says it's a no no..

This is what happens when people can't use logic.

In case that was vague. People were willing to sacrifice the life they claim to protect to place the blame and judgement on the mother. It's her fault.

To me, logically, within the confines of my human brain- there is only one option, that the ultimate root of everything happened spontaneously. Because 'who created the creator' and all that. I'm totally open to the idea of an entity creating a universe, solar system, planet, humans, what have you. But they had to have come from somewhere/thing too. reply to: CornishCeltGuy

a reply to: luthier

All forms of contraception are free at the point of access here, from condoms to the pill and the coil, even the morning after pill. Doctors will also prescribe the pill to a girl under 16 without telling parents if they know they are sexually active. The UK does everything it can to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but still we have the highest teen mother birth rate in the EU.
That is also influence by the fact you get a home and money if you pop a kid out as a single parent here, but that's another issue for another thread maybe.
I will give the Anglican church their dues though, they have supported contraception as long as I can remember.

a reply to: gr8skott

Haha yes!
Even 'the big bang' what did it explode in?
As I said in the OP I don't have any particular beliefs about the origins of life and don't need the answers.
My life is now, and how it came to be, or how it ends, well it is what it is, but I won't lamely say "God did it" lol

a reply to: gr8skott

The debate is pretty logical for god in Aquinas ways. I don't find it compelling but it is "logical". There is a being outside of time and space. The necessary being. It's quite interesting imo.

Including Kant's response to Hume with we constitute reality.

The basic premise there Hume says how do you know anything is real and not a dream. Kant basically saying the observer is still experiencing..

He also says we can neve know an object as it is. Only what we can perceive it to be.

The basic arguments for god for those that haven't studied philosophy are

Cosmological
Ontological
Teleological

Again don't shoot the messager just saying deep though beyond my book says so has been explored in people of faith.

Thing is, our mind nowadays needs a purpose to be living. And for reason, when we observe what's surrounding us, we see a pattern. The symmetry one, which each thing seems to seek equilibrium, by interactions with other physical objects. Hard to think that there's no will that animate these interactions, or is by itself the interactions.

It's not because I believe in a God that I said a lack of belief is a belief. I told you so because it's my own belief. That everything is a belief, since we can't verify the precision, nor the nature of our perception. That the physical state of the senses is their biggest flaw. The real nature of an object, for me, is achievable only by a perfect perception. Perfection being unreachable in the matter, we can only grasp a glimpse of it.

This makes me doubt of my own senses. From this point, I've lost all my knowledge, I had to change them to belief, because there's no way in my mind to prove even to myself that what I perceive is what it is. When I said that one is wrong when he believe that his beliefs are the universal truth, I imply that the certitude is the fault, that the will to impose his point of view to others because of this false certitude is by itself what's wrong.

To answer the question, I think they just need an answer. As I see it, they just don't want the state of "no answer", they'll then think in absolute, "if you don't believe my point of view, then you're on the other side", the one challenging directly their belief. I believe it's in part in the unconsciousness, being challenged makes them in a defensive state, we can observe this in the flat earth/round earth debate (if we can call these debate, battlefield is probably more accurate).

a reply to: IgnorantGod

It is easy to believe that reality as we see it is a reflection of reality as it actually is. In other words we tend to assume that the perceptual function that the mind plays is passive, like a mirror, and doesn’t alter the image of reality that it reflects to us. Not so, said Kant. Our perception of reality might start with sensations of something outside of ourselves, but by the time we perceive it our mind has organized, categorized and arranged those raw sensations into reality as it appears to us.

Prof Hertog, from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KT Leuven), said: "It's a very precise mathematical notion of holography that has come out of string theory in the last few years which is not fully understood but is mind-boggling and changes the scene completely."

Applied to inflation, the newly published theory suggests that time and "the beginning" of the universe arose holographically from an unknowable state outside the Big Bang.

a reply to: luthier

I really like Kant, but I have difficulties to read him, it takes me a long time and lot of rereading to understand his sentences.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

That is philosophy in general.

It's like listening to fusion or bebop jazz. Unless your vocabulary and theory is conatantly being maintained it is a line by line study of excruciating anylization.

Kant was so smart there is a chapter in every sentence.

a reply to: luthier

I agree, Kant is really a challenge in comprehension. I do take hours in most sentences to reflect about what he meant or imply. Heraclitus is another one I really appreciate for his vagueness. Always interesting to study what a human was reflecting in his time, what were the issues of the era, of the societies.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: EasternShadow

I'm with you on energy theories, but claims of gods have absolutely nothing to support them.
Sorry fella, you know that is true as much as I do lol

Wow just one second there,


Easternshadow simply asked

What is God to you? Define God in your own understanding.

You answered that you don't believe so you cant answer which is a cop out.

Everyone posting in this thread knows you don't, that point i made very clear in the OP.


It would be nice for readers to get some insight whether you simply define God as a dictionary does or have some deeper feelings towards what defines God or the concept of a God or Gods.

Do you define God as a delusion that humans have?

maybe initially the concept was thought of to control growing communities?

Or simply as its defined in the dictionary?


However, I feel asking someone to define God is a trap to simply argue ones beliefs so I get not directly answering.