Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
How can you define different kinds of supernatural beings or anything else in the supernatural when you find no evidence that it exists. From an objective perspective you need evidence of something to objectively definite.
For example, you said..
No in general atheists do not try and define God(s). They just do not believe that there is not any evidence for ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions.
You must have a coherent definition of the concept that you choose to reject before you can rationally reject its existence.
Also the "supernatural" does not exist per se, its only a label put on things that that are not within the scope of observable nature, and unable to be quantified and qualified. Radio waves would have been labeled "supernatural" to people thousands of years ago, and all of quantum physics would have been labeled supernatural 200 years ago. But once science learns how something works, and develop a theory for it, they move the concept from the supernatural to the natural
The "supernatural spirit realm" spoken of by theists for thousands of years is simply a term for another dimension of reality that science now accepts as a reality. But science does not refer to other unseen, unfalsifiable, non-verifiable dimensions as "supernatural", they are simply not apart of our observable world (i.e. string theory) , but they are just as natural as the dimension we live in.
Yes there are many standard usable definitions in the English language for; God(s), angels, souls, demons, dragons, huge giants (as described in the Bible.), monsters, aliens, but at present there is no evidence for these 'things' outside human imagination and anecdotal claims.
Being able to define something based on anecdotal indirect evidence does not justify an argument that it exists.
These are not my rules. There is evidence for string theory and multiverse. The evidence is not conclusive nor are all scientists in agreement, but these concepts are a direct result of falsifiable hypothesis and models.
You have presented considerable objections so far. The evidence for God(s) is highly anecdotal. I believe in God, but I avoid these bad arguments.
You said
(1) There is insufficient evidence to believe in any form of Divine Beings called God(s). The logical arguments for God are old, outdated and highly circular.
(2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.
(3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.
Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'
(2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.
(3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.
Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'
1. Personal revelation or experience/anecdotal (you have stated is a "bad argument")
2. The teleological argument/logical inferences, i.e. it looks designed, therefore it is (you have stated is "highly circular")
3. Blind faith & Philosophy (you have stated you reject things that have no observable evidence for their existence)
Please tell me what is your reasoning for believing In Gods existence. ?
Your knowledge of science appears very limited and warped. Since you prefer to cite the less then 1% of the scientists that do not support natural evolution. Fully 99% plus of all scientist in the related fields support natural evolution.
And tell me where I ever once said "evolution" does not happen?. The problem here is you do not acknowledged, recognize, or understand the limits and mechanisms of evolution. Years ago evolutionary science observed minor fluctuations in phenotypes, then falsely extrapolated entire system evolution from that observation. We now know through the fossil record (via rampant stasis) and through genetics (via the "conserved elements" or elements that do not evolve) entire system evolution is false.
Anyone that believes in "entire system evolution" either knows nothing about biology, nothing about engineering, or both. I will not belabor you with the specifics here, but I will explain in a thread I will start "Why Darwinian Evolution Is Impossible"
There is evidence for natural processes that lead to abiogenesis. The field of research is very new, only 20 - 30 years at best. The possible processes of abiogenesis are falsifiable in the real world and research is progressing. If you're interested start a thread and we will discuss the present state of the evidence.
Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" on The Science Network
http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...-is-life-panel
Sydney Altman said natural RNA (all RNA found in nature) can do none of the 25 enzymatic functions synthetic RNA can do, and all RNA experiments are done with synthetic RNA. Also on that same video, Craig Venter informs Dawkins, Darwin's predicted "Tree Of Life" does not exist, and Dawkins is visibly upset by this news
And two recent articles on the problems with RNA world
"The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)" Harold S Bernhardt
"Study of ribosome evolution challenges RNA world hypothesis" Gustavo Caetano-Anollés
“I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct....That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.” Caetano-Anollés
The science of evolution and abiogenesis are scientific issues, and nothing to do with the argument for or against theism, or atheism or deism, or any other belief system.
Those that believe in Theistic Evolution consider Evolution and Abiogenesis as natural processes of how God created. Based on Methodological Naturalism science is justifiably neutral as tow whether there is a God involved or not.
The above does not make sense as part of a logical argument.
Comment