Talk about God from a biology forum thread

[modest]

That's ok, BioChem. It just seemed odd that the three things you mentioned all seem to have been recently debated here in Hypo's theology forum. I wasn't really making a point about it or insinuating anything—just trowin' it out there.

Not sure why this matters. I re-engaged on Hypo this month after an absence, and joined one of the several perpetual Darwinesque discussion. Nothing was new in that discussion that had not been discussed in previous fora.

 

People rarely redirect posters to prior threads here. I have personnally written hundreds of posts here on the topics I mentioned above. If we are going to disallow repetitive threads, probably 50-80 percent of Hypography would get deleted. If Hypography has changed policy on this, someone ought to let me know.

 

Seriously with this? All I was saying is that it is too bad you missed out on those discussions/debates seeing as how you expressed an interest in discussing/debating them. There's nothing to read into that. I'm NOT insinuating that they can't be discussed again nor that I'm opposed to taking part in such discussions again. I'm NOT implying any of that.

 

My point in my three topics above is that I think (not believe, think) it is senseless to discuss anything spiritual about the Bible unless we know whether people are theists or not. The Bible is not structured as a proof of God. It is structured as a history of communication with a subset of theistic peoples.

 

One could debate the historicity of the Bible in a history or archaeology forum, or the morality of the Bible is a philosophy forum. But we are not likely to "prove up" God with it. It was not written for that.

 

This is troubling. We were talking about testing the bible. Your words were "defend the integrity of the Bible". Now you are talking about proving God. I'm not sure when the subject got switched around on me, but I am not talking about proving or disproving God. I am agnostic meaning I don't believe proof for or against metaphysical things is possible by us mere mortals.

 

It would then logically follow that I don't believe the bible is either a proof for or against God. It does not follow that the book itself cannot be tested. The bible is not metaphysical. It can be tested. It can be proved faulty and I insist I can make that proof.

 

But, Turtle is correct. This is all off topic in this thread.

 

~modest

[Biochemist]

I could not ask for a better response to explicitly prove my point.

So you can offer concrete evidence that God does exist?

I did not attempt to do so. You are suggesting that I (only I) have to prove my position, but you do not have to prove yours. That is, the "default" is your position.

My only presumptions is the concrete evidence. a religious person must assume the evidence supports his view of god, if not he rejects it.

I know folks like this in both camps. I happen not to be one of them. This is not a differentiator of the two groups. The test is whether, when using the scientific method, we exclude options supported by data that do not support our bias. Atheists certainly do that.

 

On this very site (for example), a poster (a confessed atheist) admitted that she would not accept that Christ rose even if there were an audited video tape of the event and corroboration of before-and-after EKGs and EEGs. The reason she would not accept it is because the resurrection is "impossible". Sort of makes you have ro redefine "possible" doesn't it?

 

..only the believer in the supernatural has a filter, the non believer sees reality as it is. Not as his religious views say it should be. Only the believer has a predisposed bias, the non believer has no bias.

That you can say this proves my point.

 

My best example of this sort of bias is (again) from this very site. I have posted in several threads that I think the evidence in support of speciation-by-mutation is weak. I have listed the biochemical, statistical and paleontological reasons for it. I have suggested an alternate view that a model where the tendency for DNA to restructure into daughter species is coded in the parent species DNA. I think this fits the available evidence better. On this site, I am repetitively accused of being a "creationist" because my view of the extant data drives me toward the conclusion that the information load of the original life form had enough content to define all subsequent species.

 

I think this is a raw data-driven argument. I also happen to think (based on more than casual knowledge) that a speciation-by-mutation model is NOT at odds with the Bible. That is, I have no bias one way or the other. I think the proscribed speciation model fits the data better. The DATA.

 

To date I have found exactly two individuals on this site that would look at the data and argue them on thier merits. The remainder discharge the argument because it "assumes God did it". I did no such thing. This is merely an example of atheist bias. It is perfectly reasonably to hold to a different view of the data. I accept both, and favor one.

 

Atheist bias is rampant in science.

 

There is no less bias in science than there is in politics. People are the same irrespective of venue.

[Biochemist]

Turtle is correct. This is all off topic in this thread.

Criminy. What is the topic in this thread? It got moved to theology because some were discussing God in a biology forum.

 

What is our topic?

 

All I was saying is that it is too bad you missed out on those discussions/debates seeing as how you expressed an interest in discussing/debating them. There's nothing to read into that. I'm NOT insinuating that they can't be discussed again nor that I'm opposed to taking part in such discussions again. I'm NOT implying any of that.

This is probably my last post in this thread. I offered previously to take on one of three foundational topics in an academic style as a precursor to a discussion of the Bible (of some sort- I am not sure where that would go). No one took me up on it. Let me know if you change your minds.

 

Bio

[goku]

You give complete deference to the Bible and it's interpreter in the form of your pastor.

 

we believe the Bible is of no one man's interpretation

[Moontanman]

I could not ask for a better response to explicitly prove my point.I did not attempt to do so. You are suggesting that I (only I) have to prove my position, but you do not have to prove yours. That is, the "default" is your position. I know folks like this in both camps. I happen not to be one of them. This is not a differentiator of the two groups. The test is whether, when using the scientific method, we exclude options supported by data that do not support our bias. Atheists certainly do that.

 

I would say that no God is the default position until some evidence to the contrary is given. I am perfectly willing to accept any evidence to that effect but I have never seen any, at all, what so ever. Your position is the outlyer not mine. I see reality as it is I accept evidence as it comes, so far no evidence of god, this means the default position is no god. Just like until someone gives evidence for faster than light travel the default position is no faster than light travel. Again I ask exactly what bias is atheistic? Expecting there to be evidence for something before you consider it real?

 

On this very site (for example), a poster (a confessed atheist) admitted that she would not accept that Christ rose even if there were an audited video tape of the event and corroboration of before-and-after EKGs and EEGs. The reason she would not accept it is because the resurrection is "impossible". Sort of makes you have ro redefine "possible" doesn't it?

 

Now i will admit that proof is proof, no matter how outrageous the idea is. so i consider that to be a unsustainable view and not the view of all or even most atheists or of science for that matter. hard headedness is just wrong. If aliens showed up on orbit tomorrow with a space craft that could exceed the speed of light only an idiot would cling to the idea of nothing can travel faster than light. I might want some proof in the putting but ultimately if it happens it happens. No way around it from my point of view.

 

That you can say this proves my point.

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

My best example of this sort of bias is (again) from this very site. I have posted in several threads that I think the evidence in support of speciation-by-mutation is weak. I have listed the biochemical, statistical and paleontological reasons for it. I have suggested an alternate view that a model where the tendency for DNA to restructure into daughter species is coded in the parent species DNA. I think this fits the available evidence better. On this site, I am repetitively accused of being a "creationist" because my view of the extant data drives me toward the conclusion that the information load of the original life form had enough content to define all subsequent species.

 

To be honest this argument simply puts the mutation off it doesn't say where it happened. At some point the mutation has to have occurred, This reminds me of the argument of panspermia, if the Earth was seeded either naturally or artificially by life from another planet it doesn't negate biogenesis it just shifts the place it happened.

 

 

I think this is a raw data-driven argument. I also happen to think (based on more than casual knowledge) that a speciation-by-mutation model is NOT at odds with the Bible. That is, I have no bias one way or the other. I think the proscribed speciation model fits the data better. The DATA.

 

I would like to see the explanation for that.

 

 

To date I have found exactly two individuals on this site that would look at the data and argue them on thier merits. The remainder discharge the argument because it "assumes God did it". I did no such thing. This is merely an example of atheist bias. It is perfectly reasonably to hold to a different view of the data. I accept both, and favor one.

 

If I'm not one of them then you know three but if the argument is "God did it" i would require some evidence of this.

 

 

Atheist bias is rampant in science.

 

There is no less bias in science than there is in politics. People are the same irrespective of venue.

 

Your idea of atheist bias is really just evidence that some people are too hard headed to see evidence that exceeds their world view, I see all the time in religious people, if it conflicts with the "god did it" idea then it cannot be true. both sides have unreasonable people but they are not definitive of either side.

[Moontanman]

we believe the Bible is of no one man's interpretation

 

Bull butter goku, your interpretation of the bible is but one of many. Just because you believe yours to be the only correct one doesn't mean it is or that anyone else thinks so either. Even in your little sect there are different interpretations in different Churches or places. It's difficult for me to really see you as being uninformed enough to see this.

[modest]

Turtle is correct. This is all off topic in this thread.

Criminy. What is the topic in this thread? It got moved to theology because some were discussing God in a biology forum.

 

What is our topic?

 

The only thing you and I have discussed in this thread is in regards to a debate of the validity of the bible. The topic of this thread is "Talk about God from a biology forum thread". Any substantive or sustained debate about the bible would surely be better off in its own thread... Perhaps entitled "The validity of the Christian canon".

 

This is probably my last post in this thread. I offered previously to take on one of three foundational topics in an academic style as a precursor to a discussion of the Bible (of some sort- I am not sure where that would go). No one took me up on it. Let me know if you change your minds

 

Ok. Similarly, if you change your mind and decide you will engage in a debate supporting the validity of the bible then I would be willing to take the opposing view—let me know.

 

~modest

[Biochemist]

we believe the Bible is of no one man's interpretation

Goku- this is really a different topic. It is undeniably true that different people (even different mature, educated, conservative theologians) do in fact interpret Biblical texts differently.

 

The fact that a item in the Bible might mean exactly one thing does not mean that all will agree what the one thing is.

[goku]

Bull butter goku, your interpretation of the bible is but one of many. Just because you believe yours to be the only correct one doesn't mean it is or that anyone else thinks so either. Even in your little sect there are different interpretations in different Churches or places. It's difficult for me to really see you as being uninformed enough to see this.

 

for clearification, the "we" was refurring to my church.

and there are many others around that believe as "we" do

[Moontanman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This is probably my last post in this thread. I offered previously to take on one of three foundational topics in an academic style as a precursor to a discussion of the Bible (of some sort- I am not sure where that would go). No one took me up on it. Let me know if you change your minds

 

I offered to take you up on it, I guess I'm not enough of a challenge.

[Biochemist]

I would say that no God is the default position until some evidence to the contrary is given.

I am pretty sure that this is an explicit admission of bias. Thank you for this.

To be honest this argument simply puts the mutation off it doesn't say where it happened. At some point the mutation has to have occurred.

No. My thesis is that mutations (although they certainly occur) rarely if ever cause speciation.

This reminds me of the argument of panspermia, if the Earth was seeded either naturally or artificially by life from another planet it doesn't negate biogenesis it just shifts the place it happened.

Yes. Exactly. But my point was that very few will accept the no-speciation-by-mutation hypothesis even if the evidence clearly allows for it. The biogenesis problem is a separate discussion.

If I'm not one of them then you know three but if the argument is "God did it" i would require some evidence of this.

You would be three. But I most certainly did NOT argue that God did it. I just hypothesized that it was not mutation. Ergo, I was immediately accused of being a "creationist".

Your idea of atheist bias is really just evidence that some people are too hard headed to see evidence that exceeds their world view, I see all the time in religious people, if it conflicts with the "god did it" idea then it cannot be true. both sides have unreasonable people but they are not definitive of either side.

Agreed here on all points. And I almost hate to bring this up, but you sound more agnostic than atheist.

 

Yet one more thread.

[Moontanman]

for clearification, the "we" was refurring to my church.

and there are many others around that believe as "we" do

 

I bet you couldn't take a half dozen people at random from your Church and get them all to agree 100% on what your church believes, much less get everyone that claims to be a member of your sect to agree. I've been to many of those little Baptist Churches, following preachers around, they all preach different in different churches. They even preach in Churches that differ greatly from each other adjusting their sermons to each church. I'm not saying it's a bad thing but to say it doesn't happen is really hiding your head in the sand.

[Biochemist]

I offered to take you up on it, I guess I'm not enough of a challenge.

Sorry I missed this one. Do you have a preference for a particular topic of the several?

[modest]

you sound more agnostic than atheist.

 

"Agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive.

 

The distinction between strong and weak atheism is one of several applied to beliefs about the existence or nonexistence of gods. It is similar in ways to the popularly held conception of "atheists" and "agnostics," in which atheism has generally been considered an active disbelief in gods, except by starting instead with the broader definition of atheism which includes any absence of belief in gods and thus encompasses some forms of agnosticism (see agnostic atheism). Accordingly, the division between "strong" and "weak" atheism functions to separate atheism as a disbelief in gods from forms of atheism that fall short of this, and which could simultaneously be characterized as agnosticism.

 

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Criminy. What is the topic in this thread? It got moved to theology because some were discussing God in a biology forum.

 

What is our topic?

 

This is probably my last post in this thread. I offered previously to take on one of three foundational topics in an academic style as a precursor to a discussion of the Bible (of some sort- I am not sure where that would go). No one took me up on it. Let me know if you change your minds.

 

Bio

 

:doh: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You joined the discussion at post #76 with an attack/challenge to a post by Pyrotex. What was your topic there?

 

A quick review of the initial post:

 

Moderation note: The first 11 posts of this tread were moved from the biology forum thread “Evolution Must be Taught in Public Schools”, because they discuss the theological subject of the nature of God and relative superiority of religions

 

in the Bible, God refers to us as his children.

to understand this fully you must have children yourself, the relationship is the same. we tell our children something and they don't understand, God tells us something and we don't understand.

 

As long as you believer folk are content to try & shovel your doo in here as science, I'm content to call it what it is & shovel it out. Bio you keep claiming that you haven't made it a God argument when you know darn well it's only because you haven't seen your opportunity. Again, dishonest.

 

Back on Topic then: The nature of god is a delusion in people's heads and my delusion can beat up your delusion with relative ease. ;)

[Biochemist]

"Agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, we use "atheist" two ways, similar to "Hawaii". Hawaii is either the state, or a single island in the state. I was referring to "atheist" in the sense that the individual has a belief that God does not exist, because Moon was asserting that non-existence is the more reasonable default position. My assertion is that "no position" is the more reasonable default position from the perspective of the scientific method. In this context, "agnosticism" is more specific. Like saying "the big island" instead of "Hawaii".

 

Bio

[Moontanman]

Unfortunately, we use "atheist" two ways, similar to "Hawaii". Hawaii is either the state, or a single island in the state. I was referring to "atheist" in the sense that the individual has a belief that God does not exist, because Moon was asserting that non-existence is the more reasonable default position. My assertion is that "no position" is the more reasonable default position from the perspective of the scientific method. In this context, "agnosticism" is more specific. Like saying "the big island" instead of "Hawaii".

 

Bio

 

If someone could give any evidence what so ever for the existence of god you would be correct but there is none. You are trying to get the existence of god to be just as likely as his non existence,. While there is quite a bit of evidence that shows no need for god there is none that shows a need for god. so no god is the default position. just because proving god doesn't exist isn't possible doesn't mean he exists, you cannot prove I don't have a demon in a box but would you assume the default position is I do have one, or even that I might? If I claim that aliens take me up in their space craft and give me rides around the solar system would assume it might be true? Claiming something to be true without any evidence is simply silly. Yes there could be a god but what do i gain by assuming this in connection with investigating reality? Why would you assume i converse with aliens? to humor me? How would this expand your knowledge in any way? The default position is no god, even if you say it's possible that god exists and almost anything is possible in an extremely liberal world view it's doesn't mean you have to assume it to make any progress in investigating the world.