The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth

[Hijiri Byakuren]

There is in my opinion, quite simply, no one more egotistically self-centered and childishly arrogant than the typical evangelical xtian.

LaVeyans are worse, trust me.

[PopeyesPappy]

There is in my opinion, quite simply, no one more egotistically self-centered and childishly arrogant than the typical evangelical xtian.

LaVeyans are worse, trust me.

We had one stop by a while back. Didn't last long...

[josephpalazzo]

My theist replied:

You're wasting my time as well as your own.

You have already defined as "evidence" only that which you can place under
your microscope or put on a weight scale whereas I've been trying, in vain,
to get you to see that Reality consists of infinitely more than just the
physically measurable.

You're a married man.   Why don't you prove to us, with physical measurements,
that you love your wife?  How many units of love do you have for her?  How much
does that love weigh?  What is its energy, mass and momentum?

You are so deeply immersed in a Materialistic worldview -- which is
a religious position despite your denials -- that you cannot see
anything beyond mass and energy.   For that you are to be pitied.

You ask for "evidence".    Until you pull yourself out of your delusional
pseudo-reality, there is no "evidence" that can be presented to you.
Oh, and when you have the proof that consciousness is able to emerge
solely from mass and energy, be sure to give me a ring.

My reply:

Expressing feelings or opinions doesn't require measurement. And providing evidence for them is even harder. You could profess all the love you want to your wife, but you could be lying to her or cheating on her. Those expressions of feelings or opinions can never be proven. But as to the existence of an object or entity, that is a totally different matter. So again, where's the evidence for the existence of God?

[josephpalazzo]

The saga with my theist continues.

His latest post, and my reply.

[sigh ...]   Let's go in baby steps ...

Answer this : do all entities exist in the same way?

HINT : Consider two entities: the idea (or concept) of Socialism and a ballpoint pen.
[You will not object, I assume, that both of these entities do in fact exist;
i.e., a ballpoint pen does exist and the idea of Socialism does exist. ]

Related:  If you were asked to prove the existence of the ballpoint pen,
would you / could you go about proving this in the same way as you
would go about proving the existence of the idea of Socialism?

A ballpoint pen is an object. To prove its existence, all I need is to show you one of those.

OTOH, socialism is a concept, and if you question 10 experts on the subject, you'll get 25 different opinions of what it is. You could argue that it exists as a concept, but not as a thing. Similarly, Superman exists as a concept, but not as a thing. Now, you can put God into that conceptual box. And like Superman, if there's no evidence of his existence, then God is not more real than Superman.

[Solitary]

[josephpalazzo]

The saga continues.

Theist:

Try to remain focused : do all entities exist in the same way?

You digressed into an irrelevant speech about the the many ways that
an idea, such as Socialism or Superman, may exist.   That wasn't the point.

Does an idea exist in the same way as a material object?
It is given that both exist.
The question was, do they exist in the same way?
It's a yes or no question.

Reading what you wrote and eliminating all the 'fluff',
you seem to be answering, "They exist in different ways."
Please confirm.

My response:

Thoughts exist. OTOH, the contents of those thoughts are not necessarily real. I'm thinking of the tree just outside my window - the thought is real, and so is the tree. OTOH, I'm thinking of jumping over those mountains like Superman - the thought is real, but its content is pure fantasy, not real.
 
Now, I'm still waiting for the evidence for the existence of your God ? see that thought is real, but its content has no meaning until you show up with the evidence.

[GurrenLagann]

Well, there isn't any substance to a thought. They're basically impressions of things we experience via our sense, as well as a synthesis of said impressions. That's why I can conjure up the idea of a unicorn or magic, even if there is no actual such thing. In other words, an idea can have sense, but no referent. The latter necessitates the former, but the former does NOT necessitate the latter.

[Colanth]

My theist replied:

You're wasting my time as well as your own.

You have already defined as "evidence" only that which you can place under
your microscope or put on a weight scale whereas I've been trying, in vain,
to get you to see that Reality consists of infinitely more than just the
physically measurable.

You're a married man.   Why don't you prove to us, with physical measurements,
that you love your wife?

My reply:

Expressing feelings or opinions doesn't require measurement.

Actually, we can't provide objective evidence of love because love doesn't objectively exist - it's purely subjective.  No one claims that the Christian god (or any god) doesn't subjectively exist, but Christians claim that their god OBJECTIVELY exists, yet claim that the only evidence of this is subjective.

Just another instance of theism not having a clue about what it's talking about (let alone about anything else).

[Colanth]

The saga continues.

Theist:

Try to remain focused : do all entities exist in the same way?

You digressed into an irrelevant speech about the the many ways that
an idea, such as Socialism or Superman, may exist.   That wasn't the point.

Does an idea exist in the same way as a material object?
It is given that both exist.
The question was, do they exist in the same way?

No - and that ends his argument before it begins.

[josephpalazzo]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll keep them in mind for my next encounter. Here's the latest one, which most likely won't be the last one:


Theist:

I'd forgotten how frustrating it is to chat with a hard-core Materialist.
 
Once you realize and accept that things do in fact exist in different
ways (e.g., a book does not exist in the same way as the idea of a book,
 yet both do exist) then you can see that "evidence" is also not just of
 one kind. Supplying evidence that a book exists is not the same as
 supplying evidence that the idea of a book exists.

This forces you to qualify what "evidence" would satisfy your demand
 for the proof that God exists. I mean, do you expect to be handed a
vial with a solution that you can measure pH or viscosity? Do you
 expect a slide that you can stick under a microscope and 'see' God
 just as you would see an amoeba? What "evidence" do you want?

Me: I want the same evidence that we have that trees exist, that electrons exist or that E = mc2
 
So far, you are zilch in that column.
 
Theist:

My point : the evidence for God is of a different nature than the
evidence for a ballpoint pen or a book. However, rest assured that
 there's plenty of evidence. The question is, would you accept it?
 For instance, the words in the Bible provide tons of evidence for
 God's existence. Would you accept it as such? I'm guessing, NO.

Me:Funny that the God of your bible interceeded continuously in human affairs, by making his present felt, by ordering directly that innocent be killed, and so many unspeakable atrocities. Yet, some 2500 years later, we don't get to see him. What happened? Did he die along the way?

Theist:

Another example : Given that there is a perfect dichotomy, then
 eliminating one alternative means that the other must be true.
 What is this perfect dichotomy? Either the universe and all therein
arrived here via purely natural means or there was a 'Directing Agent'.
 Following the hard scientific evidence sans unrestricted speculation
 eliminates the former alternative. The conclusion is thus unavoidable.
 
The objection is usually, "But there's NOT a perfect dichotomy."
 Okay, list any or all of the other alternatives. Go ahead ...
 
The proof of the existence of God is as trivial as it is ironclad.
 Except, of course, if the person wishes to engage in unrestricted
 imagination and denial of what the hard facts say. In that case,
 NOTHING would be able to prove God's existence to this person
 (save standing in front of God Himself).
 
That's just two, there are others.

Me:

Either God exists or not, you've got that part right. But you have no evidence to prove that existence, just wishful thinking on your part.

[Jason78]

My theist replied:

You're a married man.   Why don't you prove to us, with physical measurements,
that you love your wife?  How many units of love do you have for her?  How much
does that love weigh?  What is its energy, mass and momentum?

We could measure the levels of oxytocin in your blood when you're in close proximity to her.

Would that be good enough for your theist friend?

[Plu]

The objection is usually, "But there's NOT a perfect dichotomy."
Okay, list any or all of the other alternatives. Go ahead ...

You can come up with any number of different varities and amounts of "directing agents", though. So at best you can state "everything came around naturally" or "everything did not come around naturally" (a true dichotomy) but then it does nothing to prove that any specific directing agent was involved or even exists.

[josephpalazzo]

Well, if that question comes around I'll keep that in mind. But as to causal willing agents, there is this we can point. I can compare a painting of a tree with the tree itself. There's no way the painting can come into existence on its own. It needs a causal willing agent. OTOH, the tree grew from a seed. It needed soil, water and sun. And one can watch it growing and you know from that observation that there was no causal willing agent, just a natural process which can be explained by scientific laws.

[josephpalazzo]

I think my theist is giving up on me. The latest bout:

Wrong, I listed two just below.
But as I suspected, you 'see' neither.

You haven't presented any evidence. All you've done so far is to say: 1) the proof for the existence of God needs different kind evidence; 2) either God exist or doesn't. None of those arguments is any kind of evidence.  You provide the kind of evidence that is objective, verifiable, testable, reproducible, otherwise, you have NO evidence, just begging for special pleading which doesn't help your case.

Try again.

[Solitary]