First Cause

[warpspeedpetey]

open mouth…change feet.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Its science, i don’t expect you to understand.

I’m beginning to think I realise the nature of science better than most of you scientismic types!

Ah, Albert, you always fail to see my point - although I’m sure you think you do .

Anyway, our little side argument is probably detracting from the flow of this thread. Let’s make up and see where the debates actually going! :hug3:

 

[AlbertBall]

Let’s make up and see where the debates actually going! :hug3:

:grouphug:

 

[coolduude]

Good job guys

But the whole point of this thread was for a debate- I asked what the objections are to the first cause argument. I got some good responses too

But please, do continue! I am following this thread even if I don’t respond to it

 

[AlbertBall]

I didn’t say we need to be there!. I asked you if you had seen it take place. Then, assuming that you did not, I asked you: Where is the empirical evidence? That is what I am missing because you have provided none …

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=abiogenesis&oq=abio&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

 

[tonyrey]

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=abiogenesis&oq=abio&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

One of the first statements I come across:
“As conclusion, we could say that there are too many questions unsolved in the study of origin of life.” !

 

[tonyrey]

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=abiogenesis&oq=abio&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

One of the first statements I come across:
“As conclusion, we could say that there are too many questions unsolved in the study of origin of life.” !

Quite apart from the question of abiogenesis the problem remains as to the origin of physical energy…

 

[AlbertBall]

One of the first statements I come across:
“As conclusion, we could say that there are too many questions unsolved in the study of origin of life.” !

And that is a bad thing? Abiogenesis research is in its infancy, what you see with that statement is science, unlike religion, does not make unfounded conclusions. There is however very strong evidence that supports the natural synthesis of self replicating molecules, there is not a single shred to support the supernatural creation of such molecules.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And that is a bad thing? Abiogenesis research is in its infancy, what you see with that statement is science, unlike religion, does not make unfounded conclusions.

please, tell us. where does religion make unfounded conclusions? do you have a specific example you can defend?

There is however very strong evidence that supports the natural synthesis of self replicating molecules, there is not a single shred to support the supernatural creation of such molecules.

there is no strong evidence for the natural creation of any matter at all. evilution doesnt really matter in light of that.

 

[AlbertBall]

please, tell us. where does religion make unfounded conclusions? do you have a specific example you can defend?

Yeah, plenty, but you would just say those claims are not meant to be taken literally. Creation in general, whether literal or theistic evolution are both claims with no foundation.

However we are banned from discussing those. Lets take Noah ark. The claim there was a world wide flood is unfounded.

Now you can try and spin it all you want because we now know there was NOT a world wide flood. However** you book claims there was**.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah, plenty, but you would just say those claims are not meant to be taken literally. Creation in general, whether literal or theistic evolution are both claims with no foundation.

However we are banned from discussing those. Lets take Noah ark. The claim there was a world wide flood is unfounded.

Now you can try and spin it all you want because we now know there was NOT a world wide flood. However** you book claims there was**.

i freely admit that i have no clue how G-d did it.

do you have proof it is impossible for some reason like a violation the rules of logical inference or mathematics? is its performance in some way a logical contradiction?

 

[AlbertBall]

i freely admit that i have no clue how G-d did it.

do you have proof it is impossible for some reason like a violation the rules of logical inference or mathematics? is its performance in some way a logical contradiction?

One does not have to disprove a claim, before they can dismiss it. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One does not have to disprove a claim, before they can dismiss it. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

you claim that you know it did not happen. thats why im asking for evidence to support your knowledge.

though if youre wanting me to provide evidence for the flood, im only going to point to the account of it in Scripture. accounts from other cultures, etc. the only kind of evidence we have for any historical event are accounts of it. whether you want to talk the moonlanding or the magna carta.

so what makes you know that it didnt happen?

 

[AlbertBall]

you claim that you know it did not happen. thats why im asking for evidence to support your knowledge.

though if youre wanting me to provide evidence for the flood, im only going to point to the account of it in Scripture. accounts from other cultures, etc. the only kind of evidence we have for any historical event are accounts of it. whether you want to talk the moonlanding or the magna carta.

so what makes you know that it didnt happen?

youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/9/_sD_7rxYoZY

you will find part 2 there also. Save me a lot of typing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/9/_sD_7rxYoZY

you will find part 2 there also. Save me a lot of typing.

i already admitted that i dont know how it was done anymore than he does.

merely rejecting it on the basis of implausibility, however, is a logical fallacy. called an argument from incredulity, or an argument from ignorance.

this is just another guy claiming because he doesnt understand how it might of happened given the evidence he has, it proves that it didnt.

the problem, of course, is that for every claim something is impossible, later, science finds the mechanism by which it was done.

this violates clarkes laws

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three “laws” of prediction:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

this is why i asked for “proof” it cannot be true, something like a logical contradiction, or a deductive mathematical type argument that invalidates the claim.

 

[AlbertBall]

i already admitted that i dont know how it was done anymore than he does.

merely rejecting it on the basis of implausibility, however, is a logical fallacy. called an argument from incredulity, or an argument from ignorance.

this is just another guy claiming because he doesnt understand how it might of happened given the evidence he has, it proves that it didnt.

the problem, of course, is that for every claim something is impossible, later, science finds the mechanism by which it was done.

this violates clarkes laws

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three “laws” of prediction:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

this is why i asked for “proof” it cannot be true, something like a logical contradiction, or a deductive mathematical type argument that invalidates the claim.

Well science does not “prove” anything. However the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the flood did not happen.

“merely rejecting it on the basis of implausibility” - this is NOT the case. It os falsified but the observable evidence

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well science does not “prove” anything. However the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the flood did not happen.

“merely rejecting it on the basis of implausibility” - this is NOT the case. It os falsified but the observable evidence

and there was a time that the flatness of the earth, spontaneous generation, and even euclid, were beyond a reasonable doubt. yet now we know that that the earth isnt flat, life doesnt spontaneously generate from rotting meat, and euclid assumed there were only 3 possible dimensions. the very march of science itself makes the idea that anything can be shown to be beyond reasonable doubt, highly suspect. a phantom standard of evidence that has repeatedly failed throughout history.

my understanding of implausibility is this

im·plau·si·ble (m-plôz-bl) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Difficult to believe; not plausible.

it seems that it is being rejected because the current understanding of science the currently available evidence make it seem unlikely to have occured. i dont deny that it does indeed seem unlikely. i admit that i havent the foggiest notion at how it might have been accomplished, or why so many cultures around the world have similar stories. yet from the march of scientific progress we know that there is no such thing as magic, there are simply things that we dont yet understand.

now, surely you do not believe in magic, and i definitely dont believe in magic. so it seems to me that we cannot exclude this event from an explanation at some later date.

therefore only a logical contradiction, mathematical, term logic, etc, can truly exclude this as a possiblity. anything else could easily be overturned with new evidence or information, just as previous statements based ona reasonable doubt, have been.

 

[AlbertBall]

and there was a time that the flatness of the earth, spontaneous generation, and even euclid, were beyond a reasonable doubt. yet now we know that that the earth isnt flat, life doesnt spontaneously generate from rotting meat, and euclid assumed there were only 3 possible dimensions. the very march of science itself makes the idea that anything can be shown to be beyond reasonable doubt, highly suspect. a phantom standard of evidence that has repeatedly failed throughout history.

my understanding of implausibility is this

it seems that it is being rejected because the current understanding of science the currently available evidence make it seem unlikely to have occured. i dont deny that it does indeed seem unlikely. i admit that i havent the foggiest notion at how it might have been accomplished, or why so many cultures around the world have similar stories. yet from the march of scientific progress we know that there is no such thing as magic, there are simply things that we dont yet understand.

now, surely you do not believe in magic, and i definitely dont believe in magic. so it seems to me that we cannot exclude this event from an explanation at some later date.

therefore only a logical contradiction, mathematical, term logic, etc, can truly exclude this as a possiblity. anything else could easily be overturned with new evidence or information, just as previous statements based ona reasonable doubt, have been.

Ok lets run with the earth flat analogy. There was never a time where the earth being flat was beyond reasonable doubt. There was a time when we did not have the information to come to a meaningful conclusion. However that time has long since passed, we now know beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is round. We have the exact same data for the flood, there is no doubt. We have the evidence that the earth is not flat, we have the evidence that there was no global flood, there is no doubt.

Now the only explanation you are left with is god did it, by what amounts to magic, then changed all the evidence to make it look like there was no global flood.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok lets run with the earth flat analogy. There was never a time where the earth being flat was beyond reasonable doubt.

we should also explore other analogies later.

i would say that from the view point of the common man, even a few hundred years ago, the flat earth seemed quite sensible. after all, from any point on earth, it does look flat to the unaided eye. but even more importantly, there are some people who still doubt. some jokingly, some quite seriously.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

There was a time when we did not have the information to come to a meaningful conclusion. However that time has long since passed, we now know beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is round.

yes, but we now know as a matter of experience a change in our abilities to observe the truth of the matter. we have circumnavigated the globe. seen it from space. so we have absolute 100%proof that the earth is not flat, as long as our senses are trustable.

We have the exact same data for the flood, there is no doubt. We have the evidence that the earth is not flat, we have the evidence that there was no global flood, there is no doubt.

there is definitely doubt about the evidence for and against the flood.

[(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org/html/the_flood.html](http://www.(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org/html/the_flood.html)
apologeticspress.org/articles/2885
answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard

now, i dont pretend too know their arguments or support them any more thna the fellow from the link you posted. the point i make by posting them, is that there is definitely doubt.

but i have to disagree in another way as well. the situations arent the same in an important way.

with the flat earth we can experience the truth directly, from orbit if need be. that situation doesnt exist for the flood, no one alive was there, we only have the accounts of various cultures, and what evidence one might construe as applicable from 5000 years ago.

Now the only explanation you are left with is god did it, by what amounts to magic, then changed all the evidence to make it look like there was no global flood.

G-d did it, is not a claim of magic, its only a claim that G-d used a process which we do not currently understand. as clarke said. any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

but we are not uneducated tribesman to believe that magic happens because we do not understand the process used to accomplish it. we know there is no such thing as magic, and as such any claim that seems as though a miracle, or magical claim can really only be said not to be understood by what we currently know.

 

[AlbertBall]

we should also explore other analogies later.

i would say that from the view point of the common man, even a few hundred years ago, the flat earth seemed quite sensible. after all, from any point on earth, it does look flat to the unaided eye. but even more importantly, there are some people who still doubt. some jokingly, some quite seriously.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Eratosthenes disproved the flat earth 240 BC

yes, but we now know as a matter of experience a change in our abilities to observe the truth of the matter. we have circumnavigated the globe. seen it from space. so we have absolute 100%proof that the earth is not flat, as long as our senses are trustable.

there is definitely doubt about the evidence for and against the flood.

[(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org/html/the_flood.html](http://www.(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org/html/the_flood.html)
apologeticspress.org/articles/2885
answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard

now, i don’t pretend too know their arguments or support them any more than the fellow from the link you posted. the point i make by posting them, is that there is definitely doubt.

Ok the is not doubt withing academia. I do not consider those to be credible sources.

but i have to disagree in another way as well. the situations aren’t the same in an important way.

with the flat earth we can experience the truth directly, from orbit if need be. that situation doesn’t exist for the flood, no one alive was there, we only have the accounts of various cultures, and what evidence one might construe as applicable from 5000 years ago.

we can observe the evidence that falsifies the flood, it is the exact same, except we don’t need to travel to space.

G-d did it, is not a claim of magic, its only a claim that G-d used a process which we do not currently understand. as clarke said. any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

but we are not uneducated tribesman to believe that magic happens because we do not understand the process used to accomplish it. we know there is no such thing as magic, and as such any claim that seems as though a miracle, or magical claim can really only be said not to be understood by what we currently know.

Well it depends how you define magic.