last day (18 days later) » 

3:22 AM
A: According to Creationists, what are the strongest arguments against abiogenesis?

Hold To The RodI'll offer 2 critiques 1. A leap of faith too far For purposes of this post I'll use as a working definition of faith the one proposed by @curiousdannii - reliance on something because of its past behavior (the popular refrain that faith is belief without evidence is a strawman--see further disc...

The probability section seems to ignore (a) the possibility that DNA started off simpler and (b) that natural selection guides the randomness (and potentially (c) that all mutations may not be equally likely or even possible and (d) mutations of viable variations are much more likely to be viable variations themselves).
"those who actively believe that naturalism will eventually produce a solution to the origin of life problem are making a god-of-the-gaps argument: I can't yet answer this question, therefore naturalism" - uhhh... no? I don't know of anyone who says this. More like: if we don't have enough evidence to conclude that the supernatural exists, then we should stick to just natural explanations, for roughly the same reason that you'll reject me saying "well, invisible magic fairies did that".
Even if you believe that God exists, methological naturalism is arguably still the most rational methodology. If you're just going to say "God did it" for anything you don't know, you'll say God made you sick, God made it rain, God helped you find your keys, etc. Scientific discovery would be dead on arrival. Methological naturalism is necessary if you want to expand your knowledge of reality in any way.
"I'll use as a working definition of faith the one proposed by @curiousdannii - reliance on something because of its past behavior" - if nothing else, I wish Christians would stop trying to say that atheists "have faith" too, despite this involving mixing and matching definitions of faith. The definition used above is the exact opposite of the definition used in "a leap of faith", "an act of faith" or having "enough faith" (all also used in this answer) - those all involve belief without sufficient reason.
@NotThatGuy I updated my post. I appealed to an intelligent mind (something known to exist), not fairies. I wish more atheists would take the trouble to learn what faith means in Christian scriptures. It is commonly caricatured, which doesn't aid discussion. If we're using faith the way the Bible uses the term, atheists & theists alike exercise faith all the time.
"I appealed to an intelligent mind (something known to exist), not fairies" - fairies also have intelligent minds. Some Christians use the "belief without evidence" definition of faith, you'll find them saying so on this very site. When atheists object to faith, they're objecting to that definition that Christians actually use (what the Bible says is irrelevant, because the discussion is about what Christians actually believe). If you use a different definition, then those objections aren't about you. But also, most of this answer, especially Turek's quote, supports the definition you oppose
"natural selection acts upon random mutation" ... by favouring certain mutations based on how well-suited they are to the environment. In effect, "guiding" the mutations, i.e. what I said. So that's perfectly consistent with evolution, not a "novel theory".
@NotThatGuy then provide a "theology" of fairies and I'd be happy to respond. The title of Turek's work is satirical (added a link in case this wasn't apparent)
You may notice I said "if we don't have enough evidence to conclude that the supernatural exists". By that condition, we have insufficient evidence to conclude that either God or fairies exist, so it's no more rational to conclude that either was responsible for anything. You may disagree about whether we have enough evidence that God exists, but I'll remind you that you're talking about someone else's beliefs here (which you're misrepresenting). Satire is a convenient excuse for any problems with what one said (and Turek's "satire" is more harmful to discussion than whatever atheists say).
3:22 AM
@NotThatGuy - 1) What is your definition of "sufficient evidence"? 2) Given some belief X, what algorithm/procedure/standard do you follow to determine that there is sufficient evidence to believe X? 3) Is said algorithm/procedure/standard absolutely optimal? Could there be a better one? Yes or no, and why?
Relevant question:
Q: How do Christians define knowledge and faith?

Spirit Realm InvestigatorThere have been many attempts at defining knowledge in philosophy. One of the most commonly used definitions is justified true belief (JTB), which demands that a claim must be (1) true, (2) believed and (3) justified in order for a person to be said to know that claim. However, this definition ha...

9 hours later…
12:29 PM
@NotThatGuy - What are your thoughts on this answer: ?
4 hours later…
4:47 PM
@SpiritRealmInvestigator I'm sure we've been through this already a few times, but "sufficient evidence" is a subjective judgement and comes down to what the simplest explanation is. Although it's worth noting that at some point evidence in favour of a belief becomes so overwhelming that almost no-one (who actively studies that) denies it (like how 99%+ of scientists believe that evolution is real and the Earth is billions of years old).
@SpiritRealmInvestigator I don't care much for arguing semantics (unlike many others... and this is way too frequently used to strawman). That answer is a whole lot of semantics (which isn't a criticism as much as a description), so I don't have too much to argue about. Although I just scanned through it.
I can't say I really understand the faith versus knowledge distinction presented there though (nor do I care much about it, given that it's semantics). The way I read the first paragraph is roughly as "people get #1 from the Bible, but people get #2 from the Bible". Or maybe the source itself is meant to be #2.

For what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned, knowledge is what we know (i.e. beliefs with sufficient reason, which are ideally true, but we don't have a way to verify objective truth, so if that's included in the criteria, then strictly speaking we wouldn't have any knowledge) and
5:21 PM
@NotThatGuy - You said "I instead maintain there's a single rational set of beliefs, given some set of evidence (there may be some gray area around prediction of future events, for example, but that's the gist of it), so anyone who ends up with beliefs outside of that set are by definition irrational", but you also said "but "sufficient evidence" is a subjective judgement and comes down to what the simplest explanation is".
Sounds like you are saying that sufficient evidence is both objective and subjective, which would be a contradiction. How do you reconcile these two statements of yours?
5:33 PM
@SpiritRealmInvestigator I suppose the simplest answer would be that objectively correct judgements exist for "sufficient evidence", but we just can't know exactly what that is, therefore our judgements are subjective (much like what I said about rationality). But I may need to further contemplate this.
6:02 PM
@NotThatGuy - Do you know prominent/notable authors who share your views on this matter?

  last day (18 days later) »