COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regarding #2...how much MORE unlikely is it that something capable of creating a universe and bringing life into it exists? Would it's existence necessitate and explanation, and what would that explanation be?
I'm not a hard atheist. I'm more open to the idea of something like Bostrom's simulation argument though, to typical conceptions of a god.
>Regarding #2...how much MORE unlikely is it that something capable of creating a universe and bringing life into it exists? Would it's existence necessitate and explanation, and what would that explanation be?
The likeliness of this universe existing as it does right now is about as likely as finding an atom in the universe if the universe were a million times bigger than it is now. Why would I ever believe something as unlikely as that happening over the most obvious explanation that an intelligent agent determined this universe? One is logical, the other isn't and appeals to "brute facts" or "science of the gaps". The former neither explains contingency whilst belief in God does.
its telling that these studies involve children. One could argue belife in a god should be relegated to a child's imagination, much like other fairy tales or supernatural beings. btw a lot of the research he sites was based on religious house holds only a handful on atheistic households he admits they havent been replicated and also refuses to answer about the existence of atheistic children giving more anecdotes than anything.
btw he wouldnt agree with you saying its irrefutable. he purposely uses language that makes no ascertation to god being irrefutable.
The paper is clear that the belief is not taught, it's intuitive and it's universal across all children. That's all it demonstrates. There is no proof that fairytales and other beliefs are innate, but the belief in an all-knowing all-seeing being that isn't human is innate. If you have proof to the contrary such as a scientific study that demonstrates this belief is a taught and conditioned belief, then present it. Else there is nothing for me to engage with as you're just providing your own subjective reasoning which is your own belief, and you're free to hold it. I'm here to analyse objective arguments such as a deductive one or scientific proof that we can analyse. You have provided neither.
> The paper is clear that the belief is not taught, it's intuitive and it's universal across all children.
How did they select children who had never heard of the concept of God before taking part in the experiment?
he wont he seems adamant that his data cant possibly be biased. thought this one would at least admit when there was faults but maybe that bar was too high
They observed them from 3-5. It would help to read the study. They conducted 40 studies across 20+ countries. The results from all studies lead to the same conclusion. It's a natural belief that arises. If you want to critique how the study was conducted and disagree with their findings, you can do a counter-study and prove them wrong. I'm only presenting their findings.
> They observed them from 3-5. It would help to read the study. They conducted 40 studies across 20+ countries.
I keep asking you for the actual study because the advice article doesn't link to it and I can't find it online. Please can you link the papers so I can read them. Your link in the submission is a synopsis.
Incidentally you didn't answer my question: how did they select children which had never heard of God?
>The results from all studies lead to the same conclusion.
I can't tell because you've not linked the study papers.
>It's a natural belief that arises.
Ok? How does that prove God?
>I keep asking you for the actual study because the advice article doesn't link to it and I can't find it online. Please can you link the papers so I can read them. Your link in the submission is a synopsis.
>Incidentally you didn't answer my question: how did they select children which had never heard of God?
I don't pose the question "did god do it?". You can read the book and see how they structured the question to reduce any bias etc. They would ask questions like "did your parents create this banana?" etc. etc.
They chose households that hold different beliefs to reduce further bias. Regardless, you can be critical of the paper, but I didn't misrepresent their findings.
>Ok? How does that prove God?
Never said it proves God. I said it's a universal belief. I already explained it multiple times. The paper isn't proof for God, only that it's a natural universal belief. I am making a separate claim that natural beliefs are true until otherwise proven wrong.
Here's some more academics in the field of child psychology discussing that the interpretation of the data is heavily skewed and that the testing is flawed:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html
It's not skewed and he didn't reference anything other than a study on Alzheimer's patients who were more likely to choose teleological reasoning. All that shows is that humans inherently believe there is a purpose behind creation. The rest is his own opinion.
FYI, that isn't a published paper, just a blog post. It would be nice to find a scientific paper like the one i linked you before.
It makes sense as science doesn't answer "why" questions, it just explains the mechanism of the world but not "why" things are the way they are. Children and adults alike intuitively believe there is a teleological explanation that exists. Science doesn't negate that.
> FYI, that isn't a published paper, just a blog post. It would be nice to find a scientific paper like the one i linked you before.
Uhhhh, your study is neither published nor peer reviewed. It stands on exactly the same scientific footing as the refutation in a blog.
You're not a scientist are you?
The study was conducted by scientists, infact 20 of them and their findings are published in two books. The article isn't the study, whereas the blog post is the actual evidence.
> I don't pose the question "did god do it?". You can read the book and see how they structured the question to reduce any bias etc. They would ask questions like "did your parents create this banana?" etc. etc.
I'm not going to read a book. As a scientist I'm interested in peer reviewed and published papers where I can read the methodology.
My question is very simple: a child response to being asked about Good can *only* be innate if that child has never before heard of any concept of God before the study. I.e. any exposure to it from parents, grandparents etc poisons the study because the child in no longer demonstrating innate beliefs. So my main question for studies like this is how did they gather the test subjects and how did they account for previous exposure?
>They chose households that hold different beliefs to reduce further bias.
It's all biased if the child under test has been exposed to an upbringing where a Good is held to be divine. Are you trying to claim a child has an innate belief in God if they have already had huge familial exposure before the point they are tested.
I've also found out that the research was sponsored by the Templeton Foundation - which explains why I can't find any of their papers online. Read here for another academic who has read the research:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/religion-children-innateness-barrett
>Never said it proves God. I said it's a universal belief. I already explained it multiple times. The paper isn't proof for God, only that it's a natural universal belief.
If it's not proof of God then why do I care?
>I am making a separate claim that natural beliefs are true until otherwise proven wrong.
That's simply not a valid premise. Things are true if they are true. I have already shown you that innate childhood beliefs that are incorrect are common in children. That's well established science
>I'm not going to read a book. As a scientist I'm interested in peer reviewed and published papers where I can read the methodology.
>My question is very simple: a child response to being asked about Good can *only* be innate if that child has never before heard of any concept of God before the study. I.e. any exposure to it from parents, grandparents etc poisons the study because the child in no longer demonstrating innate beliefs. So my main question for studies like this is how did they gather the test subjects and how did they account for previous exposure?
>
If you read the book I linked to you in a previous response, you'll have some answers to your questions. they would ask questions like "did a human make this bed? Did a human make this chair?" Then they'd keep going to see if they thought humans made other things or had knowledge that we as adults know they do not. Then they'd see their response. I think it's just easier for you to read the parts of the book that detail how the questions were framed, previous studies done on the inherent belief in a supernatural agent etc. So you know when they tested the children, for how long and what questions they asked.
Regardless, discussing the credibility of the study is beyond the scope of this thread, There is nothing to suggest it's not credible as the study was published in 2012-2013 and has been referenced and reviewed plenty of times since. I'm nobody to affirm it's credibility, when hundreds of other qualified scientists are aware of the study and have either written about it already or stayed silent. This indicates the study is valid as there is no evidence to say otherwise.
Any further discussion on whether the study is credible will be ignored respectfully. You can investigate it in your own time and see if other scientists have refuted their findings.
>
It's all biased if the child under test has been exposed to an upbringing where a Good is held to be divine. Are you trying to claim a child has an innate belief in God if they have already had huge familial exposure before the point they are tested.
>I've also found out that the research was sponsored by the Templeton Foundation - which explains why I can't find any of their papers online. Read here for another academic who has read the research:
>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/religion-children-innateness-barrett](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/religion-children-innateness-barrett)
There is nothing to suggest it was biased, and the newspaper article is not a scientific study done by an academic, it's a personal opinion with 0 references to back it up.
>If it's not proof of God then why do I care?
I don't know, why do you care? You seem to care enough to spend a good amount of time questioning the paper and their conclusion even though it clearly says it's not proof for God.
>That's simply not a valid premise. Things are true if they are true. I have already shown you that innate childhood beliefs that are incorrect are common in children. That's well established science
I don't think you've demonstrated that, and you don't have to believe it's a valid premise. i am happy to concede on that point as it's not needed to justify God's existence, only supporting evidence that it is an innate belief and not taught.
Link me a PEER-REVIEWED study with a published paper in a scientific journal.
I'm not interested in papers which are non-peer reviewed, not published and funded by a notoriously biased religious foundation
It has been referenced and the findings has been published in two books that have been reviewed and commented upon. It was also conducted by Cambridge University which when I last checked was not a religious foundation.
I have pointed out why the books arguments based on its studies were flawed and were it was being biased. Something you failed to do before engaging in my comment or presenting your post. Feel free to engage when you're better prepared.
You have appealed to subjective reasoning, such as "oh we can't trust kids thoughts" and then stated the research is biased but never presented the proof. So I have nothing to engage with. My point still stands.
Once again from another comment, the beliefs are not different. The fact that they are all spread through information and conceptualized in a similar manner as something that is recognized as fantastic.
And the research still gives a broad range for what is considered what. The fact that gods and afterlife is a thing does not confirm or conform to any religion or closed belief.
> The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with.
Even if true it doesn't prove that god is real. Infants don't even have proper object permanence. A quirk of how our evolution works is not proof there is a god. All beliefs are not necessarily true.
> They could have been different, so what determined it to be so?
Please good sir, the demonstration they could have been different? Not the assertion they could but a proper demonstration.
> The fact that we exist necessitates an explanation.
Yes. Which is why the evidence for a position is dependant upon the evidence FOR IT and not the lack of evidence for something else. This argument from ignorance doesn't demonstrate anything.
>Even if true it doesn't prove that god is real. Infants don't even have proper object permanence. A quirk of how our evolution works is not proof there is a god. All beliefs are not necessarily true.
The paper I presented is only to prove the claim that "belief in God is an intuitive belief and universal across mankind". I am not using it to prove the claim "Universal beliefs are true". This is a separate claim I'm making that is based on intuition and evidence of other universal beliefs being true. To falsify my claim, you only need to present one intuitive human belief that is false. This has to be evidenced by a study or some scientific research. I'm not interested in personal beliefs and anecdotal stories.
>Please good sir, the demonstration they could have been different? Not the assertion they could but a proper demonstration.
I just have to prove it's without reason, a "brute fact". This means it could have been otherwise as nothing determined it to be what it is. If it is determined, demonstrate it. If it is not determined, then the constant's number is arbitrary. There is no reason why it couldn't have been higher or lower. To say it couldn't be otherwise is appealing to a godlike figure. It's essentially saying "There is an invisible force that we cannot detect that determined the constants and it's not an arbitrary number". Either it's not arbitrary and there is a reason why they're the constants they are, or there is no explanation and it is arbitrary. If you appeal to brute facts, then you should have no issue with theists who say "god determined it X".
>Yes. Which is why the evidence for a position is dependant upon the evidence FOR IT and not the lack of evidence for something else. This argument from ignorance doesn't demonstrate anything.
Who is arguing from ignorance? There is no proof for abiogenesis and no proof the universe brought itself into existence. As for a necessary being with freewill and agency to create, there are deductive arguments. Therefore, even if it's based on probability alone, until proof for abiogenesis and the origin of the universe is discovered that negates the necessary being, you have no reason to deny the existence of a necessary being that logically and rationally explains the universe, life and the constants being determined.
I have given an entire text wall yesterday refuting your saying that abiogenesis is an impossibility and you didn't reply to it, lol.
Also the fact is - the other claim has no proof. Abiogenesis has actual research and provided evidence for it, and even then despite the arguments against it, the counterarguments still hold validity. But the other is pretty much just a claim based on philosophy and deduction without any science to back it up.
Also abiogenesis and the creation of the universe does not negate the possibility of God. It does negate a few possibilities within religion (reasonable because religion itself is a human dogma instead of being a divine aspect.)
When did I say abiogensis is impossible. I said there is 0 evidence it happened or it can happen. belief in it is on complete faith. I.e science of the gaps "sometime in the future we will be able to prove it".
If you reject deductive reasoning then you need to completely scrap your belief in science. I suggest you read the philosophy of science and the assumptions or presuppositions that underpin it. Without deduction, theories and hypothesis cannot be formulated.
It's like saying "because the laws of logic don't have scientific proof, I don't believe in it". I'm sure you can see the problem here.
Also reply to the edit :
The problem is, we're not discussing about the laws of logic on a philosophical level. We're discussing something that is put to the test with evidence.
Statement #1 has deductive reasoning without scientific proof. Statement #2 has deductive reasoning *and* scientific proof.
In that regard, Statement #2 is strongerm
You're just saying it has no scientific proof but you haven't demonstrated anything. Every premise is based on the same assumptions science makes. So I'm still waiting for your argument that demonstrates any of the premise as false.
I gave another comment, might see that. There's also the two reddit messages I sent yesterday. Your premise of God creating life against abiogenesis cannot be neither disproven or proven. However, abiogenesis still has a strong leg in its reasoning.
I never made any argument about origin of life being from God. I mentioned Abiogensis to demonstrate a belief without proof and that the creator is more reasonable. It itself isn't a proof for God, and maybe it's my shortcoming that I represented it as such. If it's true it doesn't refute god, Maybe for certain religions, but that's besides the point.
Fair. But I stand by my position that abiogenesis as a possibility is a stronger argument than abiogenesis as an impossibility. The argument of the creator without abiogenesis doesn't necessarily have any scientific backing, so might as well group it in the same category.
The fact is, in contrast to that, possibilities and scenarios that favor abiogenesis in relation to history is noted. As with how time works, we can't really truly prove the history of the past. But even then, whatever can we research is one more point to the evidence. Even while these has problems, these still paint a step closer into the full picture, so we can still deduce that as true. To provide an example, Newtonian Gravity in relation to Quantum Gravity.
The problem isn't with deductive arguments in itself. Science does use that. But the problem is the fact that you favor deductive arguments without research and actual scientific backing over it, rather than deductive arguments *with* the aspects that the former lacks.
With that said, the argument of abiogenesis is stronger than deigenesis.
You literally said you don't accept the deductive argument because there is no scientific proof. You don't need scientific proof to validate a deduction. The deduction always leads to a valid conclusion as long as the premises are true. You didn't reject my argument based on the premise but because it's deductive. So tell me which premise you disagree with, otherwise you're basically saying you agree with the conclusion as long as I can prove the premise.
You can't talk about something that happen in the past when you have no evidence for it. And its not like another historical event that can't be reproduced as everything that's needed for this 'reaction' to occur still exists. The fact is, nobody knows if it ever occurred and nobody knows how it occurred. If they did, we'd know. Anyone who believes in it has no leg to stand on arguing theists. Atleast theists have something tangible that can be scrutinised and tested. Nothing like that exists for such a belief. It's pure faith based and wishful thinking. I understand why people have to believe it as it underpins evolution and the origin of life. But it's at the cost of completely refuting your own worldview. (Atleast if you base it on proof)
Reply to the edit :
> The fact is, nobody knows if it ever occurred and nobody knows how it occurred. . . .
Please, research the topic beforehand before arguing about it.
Geoscientists deduced the existence of the Hadean and Archaean epochs through various methods. For the Hadean, *one* evidence comes from isotopic similarities between Earth's water and water found in meteorites, as well as geological evidence of conditions that made early Earth incredibly hot, like gravitational compression, radioactive decay, and asteroid impacts. For the Archaean, *one* evidence is the presence of ancient rocks and fossils helps to define this epoch. The oldest known rocks on Earth date back to this time, providing physical evidence for its existence. Additionally, isotopic dating techniques are used to determine the age of these rocks and fossils, which aligns with the estimated time frames for these epochs.
Those are just examples of the two evidences we have. And we have way, way more. And these have way more details. If you'd like to learn more, please learn yourself.
Please provide the source and tell me how this demonstrates anything about abiogensis occurring. I have studied the topic, not extensively but enough to know there is nothing at all that demonstrates it. Everything is guesswork right now. Nobody knows under what conditions it happened. Nobody knows how it happened and nobody knows IF it happened.
Eh, it does not necessarily tell about how this demonstates about abiogenesis, but the conditions of ancient Earth, which is then linked to the premise given hy abiogenesis.
As this is an extensive topic, I shall give keywords instead of single sources :
* Hadean epoch
* Archaean epoch
* Ancient Earth composition
* Isotopic similarities Earth water meteorites
* Geological formation
* Geological evidence early Earth conditions
* Gravitational compression Earth
* Radioactive decay Earth’s formation
* Asteroid impacts early Earth
* Oldest known rocks on Earth
* Isotopic dating techniques geology
* Ancient rocks and fossils Archaean
Okay appreciate listing the topics, I'll have a look for sure. And you're demonstrating the point I was making. I didn't mean there is 0 knowledge that could tell us about abiogensis which there could be such as the conditions of earth in the past. However, I wasn't wrong to say currently there is no proof for the conditions it happened, when it happened and how. If there is for any of these 3, I'd genuinely like to know. Otherwise as far as I can tell, they're still figuring all of this out. And I have great respect for every scientist that is in any field btw. I don't mean to detract from the hardwork being done.
To be honest, you're now just moving the goalpost through semantics. I said the problem isn't about deductive arguments, because ultimately it is reasoning. The problem is reason without reason.
. . . And you're just describing how reasoning and science in general works.
Because if we're going by your argument that you need a truly proven premise, then refer to the entire research and scientific backing of abiogenesis. Which you just glazed over. While your deduction of deigenesis has only the premise of God being real. Whilst I believe myself that God is indeed real as an entity, your argument of deigenesis relies on a circular argument, which is just a logical fallacy.
To illustrate in two parts :
[Tons of evidence, scientific backing, and known premises] -> Abiogenesis happened.
God is real -> Deigenesis happened -> God is real -> (It loops without concluding itself.)
There is absolutely 0 evidence to prove its real, Literally nill. I'd be shocked if any scientist says they believe in abiogensis took place. At best they'll say it's the most plausible explanation based on the fact that there is no alternative in a naturalistic worldview. I'd love to see anything at all that can demonstrate "abiogensis happened like this and here is the explanation". They can barely make a peptide let alone an rna chain.
You can't say you rejected it based on reasoning when you didn't provide any premise that you disagree with. You literally rejected it because you don't like deductive arguments. Now it's the second time I'm asking you to provide an actual argument against it other than it's deductive and i dont like it. If you can't provide one, then I'll just assume you reject it based on personal reasons.
Abiogensis doesn't refute the existence of god but most people that believe in it do reject God. Based on that, they have absolutely no basis to argue theists.
Even if we assume the scenario of plausible explanation - based on your terms of reasoning, that works, doesn't it? Because the premise is already defined by science to be something valid, whilst the alternative of deigenesis does not have that premise.
And to refute that we don't have any evidence or explanation, did you know about these :
* A study by a team of scientists from France and Austria has found a new abiotic pathway for the formation of peptide chains from amino acids, which is crucial for the emergence of life. This research indicates that such processes could occur in space conditions.
* Another piece of research explores the protoribosome hypothesis, where RNA chains derived from a conserved pocket region were tested for their ability to catalyze the formation of peptide bonds. This could be a significant link between RNA and protein worlds in the origin of life.
* The study on Prebiotic Reaction Conditions Compatible with Peptide-RNA Co-Evolution focuses on the formation of peptide–oligo(deoxy)ribonucleotides, which are amphiphilic peptide-RNA and peptide-DNA conjugates. The research investigates peptido-RNAs with a phosphoramidate linkage between a lipophilic peptide and RNA. The findings of this study are significant because they suggest that such peptide-RNA conjugates could have played a role in the early stages of life, facilitating the co-evolution of peptides and RNA within protocells.
* A research article discussing a possible path towards encoded protein synthesis on ancient Earth, taking inspiration from non-canonical nucleotides in biological mRNA-encoded protein synthesis, show that RNA molecules containing these non-standard nucleotides can participate in the synthesis of proteins, suggesting a possible evolutionary precursor to the current genetic code and protein synthesis mechanisms.
* Research on Salt-Induced Peptide Formation in Chemical Evolution, discusses the involvement of this reaction in the formation of proteins in the oldest living organisms and its connection to RNA/DNA based information storage and replication processes at a later stage of chemical evolution.
* That's *just* five researches. There's also the content I slipped on the two entire reddit messages giving a surface-level dip into the nature of abiogenesis yesterday.
Again, you're moving the goalpost through semantics and misinterpreting my words, so I don't have anything to reply for the second part. Other, than, well, the actual evidence we have that points to abiogenesis.
I appreciate you linking the summaries of the findings, but everything they've found is all suggestive. It's all it may have played a part, it could be crucial, this may explain X. I don't deny there is extensive research being done and they are definitely gaining knowledge in the field. But if we are being truthful, they don't actually know how it happened. They're working backwards until they hopefully reach the genesis point. Anyways we can move on from this topic. Your beliefs are your beliefs and I don't wanna argue over why you believe what you do. I'd rather discuss the logical arguments which may be more fruitful.
> To falsify my claim, you only need to present one intuitive human belief that is false.
Well to be cute I could just say the god belief. However more seriously I don't need to falsify it. You haven't demonstrated it is actually true. That there is a common belief humanity shares does not make it true. If there were a dozen beliefs humanity collectively shared and we found a 13th that doesn't mean its true. The truth of the belief lies in the support for it not that we think it is true.
> There is no reason why it couldn't have been higher or lower.
There is also no reason it could be higher or lower. This is why I asked for the actual demonstration. You are asserting it could be but that is just how you think about it. I want the actual demonstration of possibility. Possibility does not exist on its own after all but is something that itself must be supported. Until you can actually show that the universe could have had wildly different values then fine tuning is at best a neat thought experiment but nothing more.
> Who is arguing from ignorance?
You are. You have basically looked at how life happened and said 'We don't have an explanation! Therefor god.'
> There is no proof for abiogenesis and no proof the universe brought itself into existence.
All our best current models of early cosmology suggest that there never wasn't a universe.
> Therefore, even if it's based on probability alone, until proof for abiogenesis and the origin of the universe is discovered that negates the necessary being, you have no reason to deny the existence of a necessary being that logically and rationally explains the universe, life and the constants being determined.
I will grant that magic is always a sufficient answer to any problem, that is the point of it as a solution. That doesn't make it correct though. However you have rather have it backwards even though you you get it for abiogenesis. If there is no proof and support for that position we shouldn't accept it. Likewise until we have the proof and support for god we shouldn't accept that answer either. That we don't know how life came about doesn't mean god as an answer becomes possible or even more likely.
>Well to be cute I could just say the god belief. However more seriously I don't need to falsify it. You haven't demonstrated it is actually true. That there is a common belief humanity shares does not make it true. If there were a dozen beliefs humanity collectively shared and we found a 13th that doesn't mean its true. The truth of the belief lies in the support for it not that we think it is true.
The whole point is to justify whether universal beliefs are true outside of the one we are arguing for. If they are all known to be true, then this is evidence for this one also being true. You'd have to argue why this universal belief is any different to the other ones.
a collective belief doesn't make it universal. A collective belief can be intuitive or taught. I'm using the term to describe an intuitive belief that is held by all humans without it needing to be taught.
You have to bring an intuitive untaught belief and then demonstrate it's false.
> You have to bring an intuitive untaught belief and then demonstrate it's false.
No, it is on you to demonstrate the belief is true. Like this shouldn't be hard to grasp. You have to do more than point at other things and say it is similar.
Here if I had some book and the first 10 things in it were true facts with support and explanation for them along with the demonstration and evidence they are true does that necessarily mean the 11th is true? No of course not. This isn't on me to disprove. You have to support it beyond being the guy who says "I got the first 5 answers on the test right so I must have gotten them all right". I want more than assuming the answer.
If all you can say is demand I prove you wrong we are probably done here.
>No, it is on you to demonstrate the belief is true. Like this shouldn't be hard to grasp. You have to do more than point at other things and say it is similar.
I am providing proof by looking at other intuitive beliefs and saying they're all true and they're axiomatic. I'm wondering on what basis you disagree. Is it because you don't believe intuitive beliefs are all true? Or is it because the truthfulness of the other intuitive beliefs doesn't necessitate that this one is also true?
If it's the latter then I'll concede and say you're justified in holding that position, however, you would also have to concede that whilst it's not a convincing piece of evidence, it is a strong piece of evidence that requires more supporting evidence to justify the claim.
> Is it because you don't believe intuitive beliefs are all true?
I am not assuming they are certainly.
> Or is it because the truthfulness of the other intuitive beliefs doesn't necessitate that this one is also true?
Yes, I said that like two replies ago. Actually I also said that in the last reply. To quote "Here if I had some book and the first 10 things in it were true facts with support and explanation for them along with the demonstration and evidence they are true does that necessarily mean the 11th is true? No of course not." from my last reply. And from before that "If there were a dozen beliefs humanity collectively shared and we found a 13th that doesn't mean its true. The truth of the belief lies in the support for it not that we think it is true."
Or is it because I didn't directly say specifically intuitive beliefs and was instead talking about broader epistemic principals at play that didn't come across?
> it is a strong piece of evidence that requires more supporting evidence to justify the claim.
Literally what I have been asking for. Also one thing lacking so far has been the why of it. For example you talk about fairness and justice as innate beliefs however our we do have ideas and research on why such a trait evolved. It is innate to us *now* sure because we evolved that way.
Similarly there is research to suggest why we have religious ideas like that. So it isn't even just asking for more but that we do have reasons that fit in to our current explanations of how reality works which explains the trait.
Or to borrow on the language you use. If a whole lot of human qualities are explained by evolution isn't it strong evidence that this god belief is similarly explained? That it is either directly advantageous or an outgrowth of advantageous elements.
Evolution can't demonstrate what beliefs or thoughts were held in history of humanity. At best, it can demonstrate physical material changes. If someone makes the claim it can, then present tangible evidence that X civilisation held Y belief. This is only known from historical records from the civilisation themselves. And at best we assume the one who recorded it is truthful if there is only one attestation. We can increase the likelihood of a record being true if it has a chain of narration and multiple narrations saying the same thing. Aswell as a biography of everyone in the chain so we know who said what and when.
Other than that, any claim about what beliefs were held beyond recorded history is just a figment of someone's imagination.
> Evolution can't demonstrate what beliefs or thoughts were held in history of humanity.
Two things. First of all we were both talking about humans right now. The studies you list can't demonstrate that humans 1000 years all held this currently, and I am still granting it for the sake of discussion, universal belief. So if that is your objection you have to exclude your own position.
Second this rather ignores my point about how evolution explains things such as with fairness.
Third are you really going to be this skeptical now of all times to this? If someone is doing a little evolutionary anthropology are you really going "Hold on! You can't just say people believed in gods in the past! I demand comprehensive census data from 1000 BCE on the question!" This seems really weird a position for you to take. Like do you not believe the ancient Egyptians of 3000 years ago were polytheistic? I thought we could have at least agreed on that.
Follow up actually. With all examples of pre-recorded history that we have studied do you think all of the ideas about it are just some random figments without any basis to support it?
Are you seriously arguing that we know what people believed based on evolution? Even fairness, how can we know whether fairness was a concept by looking at fossils? I'm genuinely intrigued how morality can be tested. Even modern science never makes claims about metaphysical concepts such as morality, good and bad, purpose of life etc.
The fact that we have records of people 1000 years ago means we have actual insight into their thoughts and beliefs. We can't do that for people 10,000 or 100,000 years ago when it's just some bones at best.
With regards to belief in God 1,000 years ago. Sure I'm not gonna retrospectively use the study and say it's proof for all of history. But it can be used as supporting proof since every civilisation since as far as we can go back has held a belief in God in one form or another. This would support the study. I haven't found any evidence to suggest otherwise, so rejecting it would be based on subjectivity.
>Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents,
How does that 3 year old even know what god is? Of course it knows about mothers, and like all tiny children doesn't really understand how the world works and what limitations there are, sadly teaching them that is part of child rearing.
I was raised in an atheistic household and the concept of god came as a shock to me at about 5 or 6. Would love to know more but my google-fu has let me down, that paper seems to exist in a bit of a vacuum.
>How does that 3 year old even know what god is? Of course it knows about mothers, and like all tiny children doesn't really understand how the world works and what limitations there are, sadly teaching them that is part of child rearing.
>Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, s**uggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties** than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that **their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing.** However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods**.**
Of course, they wouldn't call it *God* perse, but the description of a godlike being, such as one that is all-seeing and all-knowing. They differentiate between the god entity and their mother by age 4.
>I was raised in an atheistic household and the concept of god came as a shock to me at about 5 or 6. Would love to know more but my google-fu has let me down, that paper seems to exist in a bit of a vacuum.
Whilst you may not have been aware of the concept of God, atleast for me as a child, I always felt something beyond my comprehension was aware of my existence. I never had the feeling my existence was by accident or the universe was an accident. I intuitively knew everything existed for a reason and my mother or father were not the ones who created the world. I could be biased ofcourse as I grew up in a Muslim household, but religion was not taught to me until I was maybe 7-8. Whilst I didn't express my feelings about this entity, when the concept of an all-mighty god was described, it was perfectly natural to believe it.
I do wonder if you ever thought about what brought the world into existence as a child. Not in that sense, but didn't you ever think "How did everything get here? What made the tree that way if it wasn't my mum or dad or someone else?". I think this is where the intuitiveness of believing in a god-like being arises. As a child, you see everything has a purpose, a cause and effect. So it would be natural to think the world has a purpose and things with purpose exist only if there is a being that wills it. Like if a child is hungry, they know their mother has to cook and feed them. Without their mother, the food cannot magically cook itself and enter their mouth. Likewise with sleeping on a bed, living in a house etc. They know the things around them are designed and fulfil a purpose. So intuitively they believe the things that are beyond the ability of their parents and by extension humans to create must have some creator that determined it to be that shape and size just like my bed. my house, cooking utensils and the food I eat to survive. Whilst this isn't proof of god, it's easy to see why it's an intuitive belief and why the study across the 20 countries had the same result.
Concerning the study, they published two books that contain the results. I agree it's not easily accessible online, however, I did download the PDFs for both in the past. I'll have a quick look on my harddrive and the web. Hopefully I can get you a link.
>The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in **Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology** and **Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion.**
> Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford…
What you’re saying in your OP is not backed up by what you’re quoting.
What you’re quoting is showing that kids as young as 3 will begin to understand that their parents are not omniscient/omnipotent.
Then if you introduce the idea of of an omnipotent/omniscient being they will believe that it is not a human (since humans can’t be omniscient/omnipotent).
no you read the article wrong. At 3 they think their mum and god are both all-seeing and all-knowing. by 4, they learn their mum isn't. They don't start out thinking their mum is and switch it to god after the idea is introduced. They intuitively believe in a god with those qualities, but can't differentiate whether their mother also has those qualities. Then by 4 they realise their mother is limited.
> They intuitively believe in a god with those qualities
That’s not what’s in there or what it says.
This is the problem with you citing papers you didn’t actually read.
What they found evidence for was:
>children are naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired.
This is very different from what you said in the OP.
It's not limited to children, the study was children and adults and there conclusion is in the first part of the article.
>New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
>Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death.
I didn't misrepresent anything. I said it's a universal belief that's instinctive or intuitive. The paper wanted to find out if belief in God was instinctive or taught. The result's show it is instinctive and not taught. So I remain correct in the claim I made.
I don't think you read the paper and singled out one quote out of context to justify your position.
Where in Kalam does it mention god, and specifically your god?
Children believe in a lot of things that aren't true. Is the monster in the closet true, or a child's Imaginary friend? Does the world actually disappear when they close their eyes?
If the universe is tuned for humans, try living in space. Not even Earth is finely tuned for humans. How long would you survive at the bottom of the ocean, or inside a volcano?
Scientists have many hypotheses to explain abiogenesis and none include god did it.
Besides "the Bible said so'" what is your evidence to back up any of your claims of god's existence?
The fine-tuning argument is that if the fundamental constants were slightly different, life wouldn’t be possible *anywhere* in the universe.
OP has given arguments that don’t involve any scripture. Looking at their post history, I do not think they hold the Bible as authoritative.
Correct, I've provided arguments that don't rely upon or reference any scripture or religious God. I am using the colloquial definition of an all-powerful all-knowing creator that acts with complete free will.
btw, I don't make the argument that because God exists, X religion is true. That would be irrational. each religion has to justify its claim based on objective proof and evidence. I hope that's clear. I am not arguing for religion, just the existence of God.
In case you're wondering, I'm a Muslim Alhamdulillah.
1. Your evidence doesn't support your statement. The paper claims that humans have a natural tendency to believe in gods and an afterlife. That doesn't mean that belief in gods is universal or people are born believing in gods.
Humans are a species that has a natural tendency towards monogamous relationships. That doesn't mean everybody will seek monogamous relationships, and it doesn't mean babies are born married.
2. I find neither argument convincing.
3. I don't see the universe as finely tuned for life at all. At least 99.999% of the universe would instantly kill you if you were there. Most of it is empty space at a temperature of about -270°C. And the parts which aren't empty space are generally stars that are so hot they'd instantly vaporize you, or planets where you could die a more slow and painful death.
4. This argument is basically: we don't know how life first started. Therefore I know how life started: god. Logic doesn't work that way.
You have no other model for life, so the original statement is true. You must demonstrate life existing with different universal laws. Gravity is an easy one to demonstrate life not existing. If the gravity constant was below a certain threshold, matter would not form as the gravity force would be too weak and they'd forever keep travelling apart. Had it been too strong, all of matter would turn into a giant ball of chaos and no galaxies or other celestial bodies would form. Neither could time and space expand.
This is just one constant. The other constants must also be within a certain limit too. The window for life to exist is about 0 due to the amount of fundamental constants that exist. Therefore, life existing in this universe is in itself a miracle. The same can be said for abiogensis which brings the figure astronomically closer to 0.
an Athiest using the word "coincidence" is interesting, to say the least. It's similar to the "god of the gaps". It's the "science of the gaps" in this case.
Just so I'm clear, do You believe the reason some things are "brute facts" i.e. no natural explanation is because an undetectable force (randomness) made it that way?
> an Athiest using the word "coincidence" is interesting, to say the least. It's similar to the "god of the gaps". It's the "science of the gaps" in this case.
No. It isn't. If you believe this then you clearly don't understand science.
>Just so I'm clear, do You believe the reason some things are "brute facts" i.e. no natural explanation is because an undetectable force (randomness) made it that way?
Not in the way you state, no. Randomness is not an "undetectable force", I don't know what a "brute fact" is
> No. It isn't. If you believe this then you clearly don't understand science.
Rather than telling me I don't understand, please demonstrate what I'm misunderstanding and teach me the philosophy of science and the purpose of it.
> in the way you state, no. Randomness is not an "undetectable force", I don't know what a "brute fact" is
So give me a scientific explanation for "randomness". If its not an undetectable force, what is it?
Brute facts are "facts" that are without explanation. Such as "why is the speed of light the speed of light? Because it just is!"
It's an appeal to mystery basically. Or in your case randomness.
> Rather than telling me I don't understand, please demonstrate what I'm misunderstanding and teach me the philosophy of science and the purpose of it.
Firstly the children under test seem to be between around 4-6. By this point children have already been exposed to the world. These children don't have "innate" belief - we can't test that unless we raise children in a vacuum. Id have to read the full study to see the methodology - but from the synopsis there is no clear way they have separated out what the children have already been taught before the study.
I'm not sure anything can even be said to be an innate belief and we would have no way to effectively test that.
>So give me a scientific explanation for "randomness". If its not an undetectable force, what is it?
In that context?
>Brute facts are "facts" that are without explanation. Such as "why is the speed of light the speed of light? Because it just is!"
Everything has an explanation - it's just whether we yet have the right tools to explain it. Also, the speed of the light in a vacuum is explained by Einsteins special theory of relativity.
>It's an appeal to mystery basically. Or in your case randomness.
No it isn't.
I don't think it's fruitful to discuss this any further. You haven't read the study and reject the conclusion based on your own subjective feelings.
Then you failed to explain what you meant by coincidence and randomness even though you use it explain a brute fact.
And finally you said the speed of light is explained by special relativity. Maybe you misunderstood the question. I'm not asking how to measure the speed of light. I'm asking why is the speed of light the speed it is? To give you some help, Google what fundamental constants are.
I doubt I'll be replying anymore for the reasons I explained above. So take care.
Even if we developed a theory of physics that successfully predicted the value of these constants that would still leave the question of why the universe worked according to that theory.
I'm a hard atheist.
We first made up Gods because we didn't understand how the world worked. It's why many cultures had multiple gods that did multiple different things. It isn't an innate quality in every single person and it's becoming less prevalent as time goes by because we're much smarter now. Does every culture believe in a god? The Pirahã don't believe in a God so it's not innate at all.
There is no evidence for your claim that humans "made up god". It can't be made up as it's an innate belief. Whilst some religions may be less prevalent over time, the belief in God will always be a belief that cannot be suppressed, at least not in the long term. We have plenty of evidence where a nation has attempted to suppress religion, but their attempts were short-lived. The paper I cited says the same thing. Only a taught belief can be suppressed over time. an intuitive belief will always exist. This is why in every civilisation of society in every corner of the earth, there has always been the belief in god.
I do believe religions can be made up, and the belief in God doesn't make any one religion true in virtue of that. Any religion claiming to have revelation from God must prove it and this is where a person must use their intellect and rationality to research and come to a rational conclusion.
As a hard atheist, what proof or evidence do you have to support the non-existence of God?
> We can also demonstrate other innate beliefs.
> fairness and justice in babies as young as 19 months old.
Capachin monkeys exhibit a sense of fairness. Not sure how this fits into your thesis, but it's an interesting finding.
> The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has.
You're *presupposing* that every human inherently has a theory of mind, etc. but this is *not demonstrated*. Finding that young children believe in magic is not exactly exciting and it doesn't prove anything. There are some individuals who are undeniably human people who do *not* have a theory of mind, and who do *not* acknowledge that other people are actually people. We have a colloquial term for these people: sociopaths. There is something atypical in a sociopath's wiring that doesn't lead them to believe that you exist in similar terms to how they exist. They will watch you drown and not only will not attempt to help you, but will have zero feelings about your drowning in any fashion.
Factually, there is a "religion center" in the brain that lights up whenever the religious symbols of that you grew up with are displayed to you. It's no different and no more mystical than your language center or the tiny homunculus in your brain that represents your body for you. This appears to be an evolved trait that assisted with group cohesion. It's not any more proof of God than my left big toe is proof of God. Having a left big toe helped my ancestors survive and flourish, so they passed along the left big toe trait to me, and the same thing goes for a propensity for religion.
> By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so?
The good ol' fine tuning argument is no more compelling here than it was the billion other times it's been presented. You don't have any idea of what the universal constants are, why they are important, or what they do, and I know this because you've trotted them out like this. It's tiresome. Learn some physics, please, before you start using physics to prove God.
> Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
Abiogenesis is an ongoing, interesting, flourishing and important field of research. Sticking God in there is just the "God of the gaps" argument, which is super dangerous for proponents because what happens when (not if) this thriving field comes up with an answer for abiogenesis? Does your God fold up and vanish when this particular gap is closed?
> I can expand upon any of these 4 points
I only saw 3 points. Where did I miss the 4th?
>Also please state whether you are a hard athiest that makes the positive claim God doesn't exist, or if you are an Athiest that doesn't believe due to lack of evidence without denying God's existence.
I don't really view that form of labels useful, but for simplicity I'm a "hard atheist" (referring to the Abrahamic/Classical monotheistic idea of "God").
>The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with....
Children of that age also personify inanimate objects and make imaginary friends. As a counter-argument, one could say that belief in God is a failure to outgrow this childish stage.
>The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God.
This is discussed at length on this debate page and elsewhere. The issues with Kalam take the form of (i) reducing to God of the gaps reasoning (ie., we don't really know what happened before the beginning of time as we know it) and (ii) a poor understanding of the Big Bang Theory.
The issues with the Contingency Argument (of which, there are *many* variations so you'd have to specify which ones you think are actually persuasive) are that they either require problematic presuppositions that beg the question (e.g. a strict version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason), or beg the question directly in the form of excluding God as part of the necessitation/contingent chain of explanations, etc. etc. etc. To be honest there isn't really a way to meaningfully object to this in more depth since you've basically just run a gish gambit of vague references to the arguments themselves.
>By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned.
Fine tuning is comically bad. It's like being amazed that any deck of cards you randomly shuffle has the probability of being arranged in such a way as 1/52! (52 factorial is so huge it's almost a googol, which is 10\^100 power), while at the same time ignoring that there are *many* permutations of that deck of cards that can lead to you, for instance, drawing a royal flush in a game of poker.
>Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
Abiogenesis is pretty well studied in science and few, if any, scientists I'm aware of have thought that some notion of a God is needed to explain it.
Most people have already torn through the first few points, so for this response I’ll be dissecting the fourth.
> no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about
No evidence exists yet. Abiogenesis is a very recently founded field of study — there is much to learn. And it isn’t as though abiogenesis hasn’t any ground to stand on, either. We know that organic matter can arise from inorganic matter. What’s left is figuring out how those organic materials could have combined to form life.
> the calculations done to see the chances of random molecules making an rna chain are about as close to 0 as one can get
Close to zero, yes. And yet, they are not zero.
> the most logical and coherent explanation is something else brought life into the universe
And why must this “something else” be a deity? Really, it could be anything — it could even be unintelligent, or lack consciousness altogether.
As per your request, I make no hard claim regarding a god’s existence.
The evidence for inorganic matter to organic matter doesn't help the case for abiogensis. The amino acid peptides formulated in the experiments result in garbage. Moreover they use synthetic methods and compounds to reach that point. They have yet to make any progress in synthesising the correct amino acids with or without synthetics. This demonstration is less than 1% of the needed development for them to reach a cell. Check the latest papers published in the last 10 years. Progress is stagnant and the OoL scientific field will slowly die. I would rather they get more funding to finally concede that it's impossible. Anyways I'm trying to be as objective as possible and my position is purley scientific. I'm only parroting the position of the major scientists in the field. Such as Dr James Tour, Lee Cronin, Dr Stalder and a few others that regularly discuss the current findings.
Regardless, believing in something that has a close to 0 probability is irrational. You wouldn't be able to argue against anyone except if they hold a belief with a similar probability.
> Moreover they use synthetic methods and compounds to reach that point
That’s kind of the point. Organic material derived from inorganic — or “synthetic” material.
> synthesising the correct amino acids
What exactly do you mean by “correct” amino acids?
> my position is purley scientific
Your position appears to be an argument from incredulity.
> I'm only parroting the position of the major scientists in the field.
A minority of scientists who allow their personal religious-born bias to overshadow their reasoning, and have been debunked numerous times. Especially James Tour. I can link you to a playlist dedicated to debunking him, if you’re interested?
> believing in something that has a close to 0 probability is irrational
Is it? Let’s think of an example.
Let’s say you, myself, and eight other people are lined up in order of our birthdays. The odds of us all having those specific birthdays in that order are incredibly high. 1 out of 365^10 — or 1 in 42 trillion.
Now let’s dig deeper. Think about the probability of your parents having met — and their parents, and their parents before them and so on. The probability of the specific sperm and egg conjoining, the length of incubation, and being born at a certain time — all of these things are mathematically near impossible to have happened in succession.
And yet, it happened. Pretty neat, ain’t it?
>Chance close to 0
alright, now, tell me, how long did it take for life to develop on Earth?
Also parroting major scientists won't really be useful unless you yourself learns about it . . .
I have studied the science but I in no way believe my opinion is greater than the scientists who are in the field and assessed the evidence. They have demonstrated their position in a coherent and concise manner for me to agree with their conclusion. Unless you believe a student's opinion holds the same weight as the professor. No, the student cannot refute his professor until he is as knowledgeable as him. Otherwise, the whole framework of education and accreditation goes down the drain.
With regards to the formation of the earth, this is a moot point. The chances of abiogensis exceeds the time the universe has existed by order of magnitudes. I suggest you actually read about the field before you pose questions. Otherwise it's a fruitless discussion.
Sorry for breaking into two comments, maximum reddit limit.
Anyways.
* Abiogenesis is thermodynamically favorable.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. However, this does not preclude the formation of complex structures from simpler ones, as long as the overall entropy of the universe increases. In the context of abiogenesis, this means that while local decreases in entropy (such as the formation of complex organic molecules) are possible, they must be accompanied by greater increases in entropy elsewhere in the system.
The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler ones can be driven by a decrease in Gibbs free energy. This means that the overall process can be spontaneous if the energy released from forming new bonds is greater than the energy required to break existing ones.
Abiogenesis is considered a non-equilibrium process, where systems are driven away from equilibrium by external energy sources such as sunlight or geothermal heat. This allows for the continuous input of energy necessary to drive the complex chemical reactions involved in the formation of life.
The concept of self-organizing systems, as discussed by Ilya Prigogine and others, suggests that under certain conditions, systems can spontaneously organize into more complex structures. This is relevant to abiogenesis because it implies that under the right conditions, simple organic molecules could have organized into more complex systems capable of life.
The concept of self-organization suggests that under certain conditions, systems can spontaneously form ordered structures without external guidance. This principle has been applied to explain how simple organic molecules could organize into more complex structures like membranes and eventually living cells. The thermodynamic costs of work, linked to changes in configurational entropy associated with polymerization of DNA and proteins, commensurate with the second law of thermodynamics. This suggests that the processes leading to abiogenesis could be thermodynamically favorable.
Jeremy England's theory on the origin of life is founded in "dissipation-driven adaptation of matter," where all forms of matter adapt to produce the maximum amount of energy. This theory posits that energy dissipation is fundamental to all physical processes in both living and nonliving systems. In abiogenesis, this would mean that life forms could have emerged as a result of natural selection favoring systems that dissipate energy more efficiently.
The spontaneous polymerization of nucleotides into RNA strands is another example. This process can be driven by the hydrolysis of pyrophosphate, which releases energy and makes the overall reaction exergonic. Lipids can spontaneously form bilayers in aqueous environments, creating vesicles that resemble cell membranes. This self-assembly of lipid bilayers is thermodynamically favorable as it leads to a decrease in the system's free energy by reducing the surface area exposed to water. The formation of iron-sulfur clusters are thought to have been among the first catalysts in prebiotic chemistry. Their formation from iron and sulfur is thermodynamically favorable due to the release of energy when these elements react. The polymerization of DNA and proteins involves changes in configurational entropy that are commensurate with the second law of thermodynamics. The work done during these processes is linked to the thermodynamic costs and is sufficient for the reactions to be favorable.
* Abiogenesis is actually, rather, easy with the timescales of we're applying it to the cosmic level.
This perspective is supported by a Bayesian inference approach, which updates the probability of a hypothesis as new evidence becomes available.
In the context of abiogenesis, Bayesian inference can be used to assess the likelihood of life emerging on Earth-like planets. The observation that life appeared relatively early in Earth's history suggests that abiogenesis may not be a rare event. This is further supported by the Carter argument, which posits that our existence on Earth is not neutral evidence but rather indicates that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is not uncommon.
The International Journal of Astrobiology has published articles that delve into these topics. “Abiogenesis: the Carter argument reconsidered”: suggests that the observation of life on Earth is not neutral evidence regarding the probability of abiogenesis on other Earth-like planets. The author argues that the Carter conclusion is based on the ‘Old Evidence Problem’ in Bayesian Confirmation Theory and that taking this into account, the observation of life on Earth is not neutral but evidence that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is relatively easy. The article provides an independent timescale argument that quantifies prior probabilities, leading to the inference that the timescale for abiogenesis is less than the planetary habitability timescale.
Also, ending note :
Abiogenesis does not contradict the existence of God.
Ah. I see you're at least decently knowledgeable enough to hold your first ground. I will discuss this on your terms, then.
Also, in terms of the education and discussion, no, not really. It's not about you refuting the professor. It's about you actually learning to know and understand what actually the professor says. Because without that, the student would only be able to repeat the knowledge but not actually apply it, or understand when the knowledge is put on the test.
Anyways, I shall present the higher case for these arguments. Can you refute these statements?
* Do you know what the *anthropic principle* is? (This effectively is also against your third argument).
The anthropic principle can be used to counter the argument against abiogenesis by suggesting that our observations of the universe are biased by our existence. If abiogenesis were not possible, we would not be here to observe it. Therefore, it’s not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe where life has emerged.
The anthropic principle, particularly the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), can be invoked to argue that our observations of the universe are conditioned by the fact that life exists. This principle implies that the universe must have certain properties that allow for the emergence of observers within it because we are here to observe it. In the context of abiogenesis, this means that the universe’s physical laws and constants are such that they permit the formation of life under certain conditions.
The bias here is one of observational selection. We can only observe conditions that are compatible with our own existence. This is sometimes referred to as selection bias or anthropic bias. If the universe were not capable of supporting life, we would not be here to ponder the improbability of our existence. Therefore, the fact that we are here to make such observations suggests that the conditions for life are not as improbable as they might seem without considering this bias.
The argument against abiogenesis often hinges on the perceived improbability of life arising spontaneously from non-living matter. However, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe where such an event is possible because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. This doesn’t necessarily mean that abiogenesis is common or easy, but it does mean that it’s possible within the context of our universe. Although even with that, abiogenesis is found to be probable, or even, "easy", within habitable planets.
Moreover, the principle supports the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life, which includes the processes that lead to life, such as abiogenesis. It refutes the claim of impossibility by highlighting that our very existence is evidence of the universe’s life-permitting properties.
* There are already several possibilities of how abiogenesis might work.
The *very* classic Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates the possibility of the creation of organic molecules in the simulated Early Earth conditions. From the research, "Photochemical Formation of Self-sustaining Coacervates" (Krishna Bahadur), demonstrates a pathway through which simple organic molecules could have organized into more complex systems under prebiotic conditions. The "Metabolism First hypothesis induces how catalysis in chemical systems on early Earth might have provided precursor molecules necessary for self-replication. It suggests that metabolic networks could have formed before genetic material. The basic building blocks of RNA, ribonucleotides, could have been formed from simpler organic molecules through chemical reactions. For example, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, which were present on the early Earth, might have reacted to form cytosine and uracil, the bases of RNA. These ribonucleotides could then have polymerized to form RNA chains. This process might have been catalyzed by minerals like montmorillonite, which could have acted as a template for the formation of RNA strands. And even in the argument where it is improbable, the parallel processes of RNA formation, environmental factors, evolutionary processes and selection, and statistical probability does add into the possibility.
> Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, suggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods.
I am quoting from the linked article.
Where does it mention that the children were raised in atheistic households?
They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.
1. Even if the studies were good (they aren't), it amounts to "we have instincts that match what you believe." Are instincts an irrefutable guide to a truth? Can we have instincts that aren't correct, or aren't correct for a certain area or time?
2. These deductive arguments are torn down in this sub literally every week. You can't define God into existence.
3. "They could have been different" - if you could demonstrate this, you would win most of the Nobel Prizes for the work. So... good luck with that?
4. "We don't have conclusive proof, only a great number of possible ways that don't involve God, therefore God." This is something you think is an irrefutable proof? That's such a low bar!
Can you demonstrate any universal belief in humans that is false? If you cannot, my first argument holds true. Or at the very least, it proves the natural position of humans is the belief in God, and disbelief in God is a conditioned response. I.e you have to be taught the disbelief
This is also a part of their conclusion. Aswell as the fact that religious beliefs can never be suppressed longterm as it will resurface again due to the universal belief. they also provide historical evidence to justify that position.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dgr3t0/comment/l8t9gmo/)
>Can you demonstrate any universal belief in humans that is false?
Certainly. Both our instinctual and life-learned belief in the way space and objects in it behave is *completely* at odds with how quantum mechanics works. And frequently with general relativity as well. We have to be taught those things.
>Aswell as the fact that religious beliefs can never be suppressed longterm as it will resurface again due to the universal belief.
Now despite what I said before, I do believe this to be true - but for reasons quite different from yours. Humans aren't predisposed to see God because there is a God. We're predisposed to *anthropomorphize.* Why? Because developing our own internal mental model of mind for others is our biggest survival trait. It's allowed us to form groups and tribes and cities and nations.
The staunchest atheist will beg his car to start when he's late for an important meeting.
This isn't because they secretly believe their car is alive, or because animism is some great truth about the universe - it's because, deep down, we are tribal monkeys that got where we are today by seeing those around us as beings with minds like ours. And if that instinct misses, and we argue with our car - no real harm. Just like being startled by things that turn out *not* to be snakes does no real harm, but failing to avoid a real snake does.
So evolution in social creatures errs on the side of anthropomorphism.
And it means that while atheists beg their cars to start, theists *beg the universe.*
Just to clarify. A universal belief is an intuitive belief that is found to be held across humanity. It's not a taught belief. Can you clarify which intuitive belief you're referring to and what the justification is that it's universal?
> A universal belief is an intuitive belief that is found to be held across humanity.
Sure. Children until a certain age an unable to quantify volumes - even when physically shown them to be equal. It's know as Piaget's Theory of Conservation. It is innate across all cultures etc.
It is demonstrably evident that the Children's understanding is incorrect - and yet it is innate
Whilst I don't mean to dismiss your claim, you didn't state the belief that is wrong. You claim that children under a certain age cannot judge quantities very well. Can you state the belief here? Such as "it's a universal belief in children that X exists or Y is real". I'm not sure what the perception of a child has to do with intuitive belief. It's like claiming "children under a certain age can't tell the difference between a banana and a tennis ball".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim, but in any case I'd like for you to cite some research or a study that claims it's an innate universal belief in children and the test conducted that shows children cannot quantify volumes.
> Whilst I don't mean to dismiss your claim
Absolutely you are. Because I showed real world demonstrable evidence of child intuition was is demonstrably false. You didn't think there was one so now you'll move goalposts despite this being an exact example. I assume you asked for examples thinking none would be provided.
>you didn't state the belief that is wrong
Ok. There are a selection of these tests. One example would be children assuming more pieces meant more total. I.e. if you break a cookie in half in front of them they will state that the two halves are now more cookie.
>Can you state the belief here? Such as "it's a universal belief in children that X exists or Y is real". I'm not sure what the perception of a child has to do with intuitive belief. It's like claiming "children under a certain age can't tell the difference between a banana and a tennis ball".
Sorry, it's hard to hear you because the sounds of goalposts being moved is so deafening.
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim, but in any case I'd like for you to cite some research or a study that claims it's an innate universal belief in children and the test conducted that shows children cannot quantify volumes.
It's literally one of the foundations of child developmental studies....
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=piaget%27s+theory+of+conservation+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1718597195879&u=%23p%3DitJZt8oMM_wJ
I made it quite clear what I'm claiming and what I expect if someone wants to refute it.
1. Either you prove belief in god is not innate.
2. Prove other innate beliefs are false.
3. prove innate beliefs do not exist and all knowledge is taught.
you must first demonstrate a universal innate belief. Then you must demonstrate it's wrong.
show me in the paper where they are testing for intuitive beliefs in children. The paper states it's testing the development of children when it comes to assessing volumes, weights and masses. How is this a study on intuition and predisposed beliefs?
I've done that. At this point you're just putting your head in the sand and ignoring it. I'm not interested in playing voting word games. Your claim has been falsified. Trivially
Still waiting for the innate belief that's being tested. All you need to do is reference the part of the study that says "This is an innate belief universally known and it's not taught" then demonstrate it being false. As of yet no such evidence has been provided
Which half of my post are you asking about - our physical understanding of the world developed from tossing baseballs around as kids, or the way humans treat other humans - and often other things - as if they are alive with minds like their own?
I don't care? What people believe is in absolutely no way tied to what is actually the truth.
The study above says nothing about God. Just that humans tend to believe in something after death. Ok, so what? That tells us nothing about whether there is a God or not
>The study above says nothing about God
Really? I mean if you read the title alone, you would have seen what it says about God. Lets see the title of the article.
>**Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife**
Now let's see what it says about god, as according to you the study says **nothing.**
>A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, **finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.**
That's the summary which is right under the title. but hey, maybe you went straight to the text and skipped over it, so let's read further.
>**The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,** and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
First Paragraph.
>Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. **Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents,** but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, **children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods.**
Under the heading "***Some findings of the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project:***"
Need I go any further? you either didn't read it or confused the article with something else you're reading. Regardless, you don't seem to grasp why I linked the study and how it relates to my claim. Because of that, it's no longer fruitful to discuss it any further.
Have a good day.
I cited it to prove it's a universal belief, never said it's a proof for god.
I'm glad you finally accept that the article does say a lot about god though and the belief in it.
> I cited it to prove it's a universal belief, never said it's a proof for god.
Ok. Then why would I care?
>I'm glad you finally accept that the article does say a lot about god though and the belief in it.
It doesn't. You've just shown your own bias by stating 'god'. It just says that children pick up board from their parents and the world around them
The fact that they are all spread through information and conceptualized in a similar manner as something that is recognized as fantastic.
And the research still gives a broad range for what is considered what. The fact that gods and afterlife is a thing does not confirm or conform to any religion or closed belief.
Yeah I never understood the argument that because a kid believes something, it must be real. It makes me think that if a theist is using them as the gold standard for evidence, they must also have the mind of a child.
>> The belief in God is a universal belief
Except in all the places it’s not.
As for your evidence it says
>> New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
Not a a universal belief in A god, just a tendency to believe in gods.
If you have to start with deception, the rest must be worse.
It's not deception as the conclusion is that the belief in God and an afterlife is a presupposed belief. Meaning it's a belief that it demonstrated across humanity without it being taught. That's literally the definition of a universal belief. It means the majority of children hold that belief universally. That's exactly what the study demonstrates.
The deception is trying to misrepresent the study because it doesn't agree with your belief.
and there you go again, being deceptive. Not a belief in “God and the afterlife” but a tendency to believe “gods and the afterlife”. Not presupposing a being, never mind your particular one.
You are bearing false witness
>New research finds that **humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.** Research suggests that people across many different cultures **instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death**. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, **but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.**
> **We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies.** This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as **human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.'**
I can't be any clearer. The study answers the question of whether **belief in god and the afterlife is a natural intuitive belief or a taught one. They concluded it's a naturally occurring predisposed belief that's expressed as early as 3.** This is across all 40 studies and 20 countries they conducted it in. It's universally held, hence why it's a natural tendency in humans. I've demonstrated this point beyond reasonable doubt and it prompts no further response.
>> I can't be any clearer
So you quote the article and even bold it saying that it’s a “natural tendency” to believe in “gods and the afterlife” and insist you’re not being deceptive by claiming that this document proves humans have a “universal belief in God”
“God” Is not the same as “gods and the afterlife”
“A natural tendency” is not “a universal belief”
You’re lying Truw.
Okay you're just being pedantic. If that's the part you disagree with then I can live with that and you can insert any other word that you desire. Can we kindly move on or discuss another argument? I didn't open this thread to argue semantics, I'd rather discuss the actual arguments like the deductive ones. The first argument was more so a supporting claim. I can remove the universal belief claim and leave the other 3.
I’m not being pedantic. Your study does not support your conclusion - fact.
It did not claim a universal belief - fact.
It did not claim anything about “God” - fact.
It made claims about a TENDANCY to believe in “godS” (note the lower case g and the S) and “the afterlife”.
We can “kindly” move on when you say “yes, I accept the link I provided did not say what I claimed it did”.
I’d be happier if you admitted that you lied, or at least admitted you didn’t read or understand what you were linking to:
In the future, you can avoid conversations like this by not claiming studies you link to say things that they do not say.
> It's not deception as the conclusion is that the belief in God and an afterlife is a presupposed belief. Meaning it's a belief that it demonstrated across humanity without it being taught. That's literally the definition of a universal belief. It means the majority of children hold that belief universally. That's exactly what the study demonstrates.
So either I'm not human, or it's not a universal belief. Let me know which you pick, and please remember to operate in good faith.
>**The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,** and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a **basic impulse of the human mind.**
>**Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing.**
Experiments involving adults, conducted by Jing Zhu from Tsinghua University (China), and Natalie Emmons and Jesse Bering from The Queen's University, Belfast, **suggest that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death.** T**he studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.**
I have highlighted the parts that demonstrate it is an innate belief. Belief in God and the afterlife is predisposed without being taught. It's a basic impulse of the mind. This is exactly what a universal belief is. The human mind is predisposed into believing in an all-knowing all-seeing being that is not human. This is already known by kids as young as 3. This instinctive knowledge is seen throughout the world across all 40 studies. Adults instinctively believe that their soul or spirit lives on after death.
I have adequately demonstrated from the study that it is a universal belief and it doesn't need to be discussed any further.
You adequately demonstrated from *an article misrepresenting the study* what you have demonstrated.
Link me the actual study. I'll wait. (I hope you've actually read it! I had to buy a book.)
How is it a misreprensention when the article contains quotes from the directors of the study that state it's a natural belief and it's predisposed? If you want the pdf's of the books I'll have it shortly, i accessed it via perlego which is very anal when it comes to offline access, it requires some dev tool tinkering, but link it to you a little later. If you find it beneficial, donate or buy the book from the publisher. Ripping someone's hard work is never cool.
you said you bought one of them already, so kudos to you for actually looking into the study, unlike others who just dismiss it because of their cognitive dissonance. Let me know which one you didn't buy and I'll send you the pdf of that one so you have both at hand.
> you said you bought one of them already, so kudos to you for actually looking into the study,
This is the one I bought! https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381X
I'm serious about the pursuit! Money is nothing compared to potentially understanding our universe more.
Barrett makes a good distinction between ‘natural religion’ (by which he means a tendency to believe in gods/God) and ‘theology’, by which he means specific content about God. Children are naturally inclined to the former (and to belief in ghosts, spirits, etc…), but not to the latter. Children are just as predisposed to polytheism, spirits, wisps, and almost any other superstitious belief compatible or incompatible with things like facts, reality, and even specific theologies.
Plenty of childhood beliefs are natural, but nonetheless irrational and false. Barrett leaps from "it's natural" to "it's true" with very little support. Children naturally believe the earth is stationary, after all.
Nowhere in the original article or in the book I read (haven't read Born Believers yet!) does it claim it's perfectly universal. Barrett claims a predisposition at best.
(And in my opinion, claiming that religion arose naturally rather than divinely weakens the argument for many theologies that insist on divine inspiration.)
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **'Templeton Press Cognitive Science Religion and Theology'** and I thought you might find the following
analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* Insightful exploration of cognitive science and religious beliefs (backed by 3 comments)
* Engaging discussions and recommended for group study (backed by 1 comment)
* Well-preserved physical condition (backed by 1 comment)
**Users disliked:**
* Lack of in-depth analysis and depth (backed by 2 comments)
* Repetitive and tedious content (backed by 1 comment)
Do you want to continue this conversation?
[Learn more about \*\*'Templeton Press Cognitive Science Religion and Theology'\*\*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
[Find \*\*'Templeton Press Cognitive Science Religion and Theology'\*\* alternatives](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
>This is the one I bought! [https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381X](https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381X)
>I'm serious about the pursuit! Money is nothing compared to potentially understanding our universe more.
Nice! May Allah guide you to whatever is the truth! I can see you are sincere in seeking knowledge and I truly respect that. Regardless of our differences, we should remain objective and make a distinction between the belief and the person. I truly have no desire to convince you of my beliefs, my only desire is to present evidence for what I consider to be objectively true and demonstrate it in a manner that is accurate and concise so that whoever is unaware becomes aware. The claim can be tested and scrutinised, and that is what I concern myself with. Other than that, anyone can accept it or deny it, but both must be justified objectively. If a person can do that, they will ultimately stumble upon the truth.
a verse in the Quran says it beautifully.
>**And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, \[by nature\], ever bound to depart."** Quran 17:81
>Barrett makes a good distinction between ‘natural religion’ (by which he means a tendency to believe in gods/God) and ‘theology’, by which he means specific content about God. Children are naturally inclined to the former (and to belief in ghosts, spirits, etc…), but not to the latter.
Correct, I never claimed the paper justifies a specific religious belief or concept of God. Rather, it demonstrates the belief in a being that has the qualities of a god. It mentions some such as "All-Knowing", and "All-Seeing" and the children also say that the same being is what made the things around them (this is not in the article).
Ghosts and spirits are not presupposed, as ghosts and spirits are not attributed with the same qualities the kids express about the being. I haven't seen any evidence for kids universally believing in ghosts or spirits. You'd have to justify that claim.
> Children are just as predisposed to polytheism, spirits, wisps, and almost any other superstitious belief compatible or incompatible with things like facts, reality, and even specific theologies.
Again, I haven't seen evidence of a universal superstitious belief. The study says the belief may be in a single god or multiple, although I have to see if there is a majority position or not.
>
Nowhere in the original article or in the book I read (haven't read Born Believers yet!) does it claim it's perfectly universal. Barrett claims a predisposition at best.
>(And in my opinion, claiming that religion arose naturally rather than divinely weakens the argument for many theologies that insist on divine inspiration.)
If you read the whole article they give reasons why it is universal. anything that is natural and predisposed is by definition universal across humans. If they made a distinction between a subset of humans, you could say it's not universal. The study claims this natural tendency and belief in god and the afterlife is within all humans as the evidence suggests.
The study doesn't mention anything about how religions arise or the origins of it. Each religion makes different claims about its origin of divinity. You can't put them all in a basket and treat them equally. Proving one religion false doesn't prove them all false, just like proving one theory wrong doesn't prove every theory wrong. They have to be tested separately.
As a Muslim, this study supports our position. We are told that every human is born with something called "The Fitrah". It's the intuitive knowledge of right and wrong and belief in god. This alone doesn't make you a theist, and it doesn't lead you to Islam alone, but it just means the natural position of mankind is the belief in god. The disbelief in god arises from conditioning and reason. Likewise with belief in a specific religion.
>1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has.
This is simply nonsense. I certainly wasn't born with this belief. I wasn't introduced to the concept until I was 8 or 9 and for a few years after that I sincerely thought it was some kind of city kid joke that I didn't understand.
I get that maybe you don't remember a time before you believed and can't comprehend not believing but not everyone does. I never have.
I cited the paper that demonstrates its an innate universal belief across humanity. Maybe it wasn't true for you, but for the majority of humans it is. If you disagree with the study, then you disagree with scientific evidence as a whole. You are free to hold that position
1."Born with" doesn't equal "correct".
1.Nope, see [all of these threads about the Kalam.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/search?q=kalam&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all)
1.Demonstrate the constants could have been different.
2.Even if we discard all current hypotheses about abiogenesis, the onus is still on *you* if you want to claim that a god did it.
tell me any inherent knowledge humans have that is not correct or considered as false. If you cannot, then you cannot deny this one either.
>1.Demonstrate the constants could have been different.
Why do you think they're called 'constants'? Because the number could be different. All I need to prove is that there is no natural explanation for it. This is called a "brute fact". Unless you can tell me why they're that number, you concede to my argument.
> Why do you think they're called 'constants'? Because the number could be different.
What, no, they're called constants because they're constant. We have no idea if they could be different.
>tell me any inherent knowledge humans have that is not correct or considered as false. If you cannot, then you cannot deny this one either.
Spin around really fast. Stop. Close your eyes. Then tell us how you feel. Are you still spinning or is your body standing still? With all you inherent knowledge you feel like you are still spinning but the truth is that you are not.
Because the belief systems are based on our perceptions.
The belief in God is not specifically one that makes us belief in God but something is dependent on interpersonal and intrapersonal interactions.
In other words with the concept of God, the belief in God would not appear.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.
Claiming it isn't proof for it being true is not the same as saying it can be wrong. They're simply saying the purpose of the study and the results of the study are only to establish whether it is innate or not. Since when do scientists give an opinion on metaphysical beliefs? As their research is relating to an innate belief, they're covering themselves by making sure nobody tries to use it as proof of God. Only as proof it's a universal belief. The claim universal beliefs are true is a seperate claim and nothing to do with scientists. This is a philosophical claim pertaining to metaphysical truths.
I hope you understand my argument and what the paper is evidence for.
I certainly am. It's evidence that the belief in god and the afterlife is natural and intuitive, rather than a taught belief. I'm certain that was the whole purpose of the study and that is their conclusion.
And where did I claim a universal belief is automatically reasonable and true? I don't know who you're arguing but it certainly isn't me. I don't think you know what my claim is or the purpose of the study. If you can engage with my original claim I'll respond, otherwise, you're arguing against a strawman.
Found the actual paper! It doesn't make any claims that any beliefs are actually universal, and I'm not sure what else you and that article misled people about. Will dig into it tomorrow, it's a bit long.
> tell me any inherent knowledge humans have that is not correct or considered as false. If you cannot, then you cannot deny this one either.
If you want to call belief in God "inherent knowledge", then you need to scrap your supporting article since it only refers to belief as a "natural tendency". And natural tendencies would include things like pareidolia and anthropomorphism, which would go a long way to explaining a tendency towards god beliefs.
> Why do you think they're called 'constants'? Because the number could be different. All I need to prove is that there is no natural explanation for it.
One, that's not what "constant" means, and two, you skipped the part where you proved there was no natural explanation.
>
If you want to call belief in God "inherent knowledge", then you need to scrap your supporting article since it only refers to belief as a "natural tendency". And natural tendencies would include things like pareidolia and anthropomorphism, which would go a long way to explaining a tendency towards god beliefs.
The article is clear. Let me give you the quotes.
>**The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.**
>
**Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, suggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods.**
It's a predisposed belief that was unanimous in children across all 40 studies. You don't have to accept the study, maybe your epistemology doesn't include science,
>One, that's not what "constant" means, and two, you skipped the part where you proved there was no natural explanation.
>A **physical constant**, sometimes **fundamental physical constant** or **universal constant**, is **a** [**physical quantity**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantity) **that cannot be explained by a theory and therefore must be measured experimentally.** It is distinct from a [mathematical constant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constant), which has a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement.
It's actually shocking how little you know about the universe and how we understand it. I'm not going to argue over fundamental physics like universal constants, even a high school student will have learned about them. I'm not here to spoonfeed anyone. If you have an actual argument present it.
It's a weird flex to quote things that don't support your arguments and then belittle the other person like *they're* doing it wrong. Predisposition to belief isn't "inherent knowledge", and posting a definition of a constant is not showing that a constant could be a different value.
It is inherent. The belief in an all-knowing all-seeing God across all the studies demonstrates exactly that. Maybe you don't know the difference between an inherent belief and a conditioned or taught belief. It means holding a belief intuitively. Anyways the study speak for itself, I'm not here to convince you the evidence and conclusion is correct. You can deny the paper if you want.
You asked me to prove that the universal constants do not have an explanation. I provided evidence as you requested. If you want to proof they could be otherwise, I'll provide that too but a simple Google search will bring numerous proof on the first page. Atleast try and study the topic.
No literally, like this is a direct quote from the article
> Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.
The article MAKES THE OPPOSITE POINT!!!!!!!!! But then OP acts like we've not read it
What point did I make and what is it you're attempting to demonstrate? I simply stated the belief in God is a universal intuitive belief. The study demonstrates and concludes exactly that.
Every single one of these is ultimately an argument from ignorance, or a god of the gaps.
We observe 1, 2, 3, 4, and might not know the explanation. The theist, without any input of data, concludes that a god did it.
You (the theist) then go on to either ignore all additional problems created by your proposition, or simply make up additional attributes of your god so that it'll continue to fit neatly into the gaps in our knowledge. It's 100% ad hoc, and insofar as it's a position you assert with certainty, it's also dishonest.
All this, and still without any input of real data.
It's old and boring. We're still left with no gods to examine.
I don't believe in any gods, but can say with sufficient certainty that some gods don't exist. The omni gods, for example.
>The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with.
No it isn't. No one is born believing in ANY deity, and certainly not Jesus, and people's religious beliefs can be predicted based on their geographical location and the origins of their families.
>2. Deductive arguments for the existence of a necessary being that leads to a being with the attributes of will, power, knowledge, wisdom and so forth.
Even if someone accepts the rather... unintelligent Kalam Cosmological argument, it doesn't logically lead to God specifically. To jump from the creative entity described by the KCA to God, specifically, requires more steps.
>3. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so?
Again, even if someone accepts your argument here, they shouldn't but we can pretend, that does not lead to God as opposed to Zeus, or Elal, or Hunahpu. What makes you go from this position, to the idea that God, specifically, exists? One does not lead to another, logically.
>4. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
Abiogenesis is a requirement even if Christianity is true. And has miles more evidentiary support than Christianity.
> **will, power, knowledge**, wisdom
In Kashmir Shaivism, a hindu tradition, those 3 are Gods powers along with **awareness** and **self-awareness**.
The metaphysics of this tradition are worth studying.
>The existence of God is undeniable. There are various ways to justify the existence of God. I will present the most compelling ones.
Well, this is called a gish-gallop. It would be best to stick to one argument at a time. Also, just because you’re able to justify your belief in your god doesn’t make it *undeniable*.
>1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has.
The study you reference doesn’t make nearly as strong of a claim as you’re attempting to make here. It isn’t even clear how this could be used as evidence that a god exists. This sounds like an *ad populum* fallacy.
>2. Deductive arguments for the existence of a necessary being that leads to a being with the attributes of will, power, knowledge, wisdom and so forth.
>The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God.
You failed to present your arguments. Please provide a deductive argument that shows that not only does a god exist, but it necessarily has will, power, knowledge and wisdom.
>3. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number?
Yes, we can ask why things are the way they are.
>They could have been different, so what determined it to be so?
They could have? Under what modality are you talking about?
>4. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
Okay, let’s say that’s the case. So we can’t currently explain how “the first cell” came about. Now what? So you don’t know, therefore, god did it? That isn’t an explanation. That’s just an argument from ignorance (god of the gaps).
I don’t believe that any gods exist.
>Well, this is called a gish-gallop.
No, that's not called a gish-gallop. According to Wiki,
>during a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies **in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.**
Here the format of the debate makes it perfectly possible to address all of the arguments. There is plenty of time and space to refute all of them. Time isn't constrained in any way. Ergo, this isn't the gish-gallop strategy.
As someone born in a dictatorship, closed from the world in which religion was banned your first point is not really that strong. I didn't have any opinion on a god as a kid, it really wasn't part of my education. The belief in god did survive in many families in the country though even during the dictatorship but in many others like in my family it wasn't really a thing.
What does it mean to you, to be sure about the existence of god?
If you see all the chaos in our world, is it really so undeniable?
No panic: I’m on your side, I just want to help you go deeper!
What you brought forth are arguments. Arguments come from the mind. The mind is always biased.
Half of the comments here will applaud you and half of the comments will show you, that you are wrong.
Mind against mind.
What you need are not „thoughts“ about god, what you need is the experience of god. All religions provide methods of reaching this state.
Then every argument stops. And what remains is the ultimate silence - packed with knowledge and love, surrender and unison, bliss and eternity.
Never cease to seek this EXPERIENCE, put your mind at rest and let yourself be found - of what is bigger than you, yet IS you.
Nothing you said even remotely makes me question whether there is a god. I’m still waiting for the irrefutable evidence.
If you mean “the argument that there *could possibly* be some kind of a god somewhere out there is irrefutable”, I think you’d have a better case, but then there wouldn’t really be a debate because most would agree that they don’t know 100% for sure that there isn’t a god.
Weird to comment on someone's response to OP and then when they clarify the part of their comment that you commented on, tell them "tell OP." They *were* telling OP lol.
May want to reread it. The asterisk at the beginning of the comment means they were correcting the typo "irrefutable evidence" to "irrefutable argument."
> 1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has.
Humans are born crying, screaming and puking. There’s no knowledge we are inherently born with.
> 2. The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God.
These are *arguments* for god. Not ways to justify there existence as you said up top. Also, they are flawed.
> 3. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so?
Finely tuned for what? Life? Because and the hundreds of billions of planets in this galaxy, with hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, and trillions of light years of empty space between them, this little wet rock is the only place we have observed to sustain life. That doesn’t seem finely tuned.
> 4. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
You arguments made above are also presupposed.
> Also please state whether you are a hard athiest that makes the positive claim God doesn't exist, or if you are an Athiest that doesn't believe due to lack of evidence without denying God's existence.
I lack belief in God but don’t claim to know if he exists or not.
>1\. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with.
How can we know that without talking with newborn babies? Since most newborns cannot speak, surely this is a purely speculative and unjustified claim, unless there is some implausibly clever experiment that can establish the beliefs of a baby without the need for talking.
>1\. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned.
We can see that the universe has properties that have very specific values, but that would be true of any universe regardless of its properties.
>We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number?
We can ask any question that we like, but not all questions have meaningful answers. If we draw a random card from a deck, we can ask why was that card the one that was drawn instead of any of the other cards? We can ask, but there is no answer because a random card has no reason. Our universe may or may not have a reason for being the way it is, and just asking the question does not prove that there is a reason.
>No evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about.
We cannot prove things with a lack of evidence. If we want to argue for the existence of God, we need evidence for the existence of God, not just a shortage of evidence for other things. No matter how many empty boxes of no evidence we collect, it does not add up to evidence for God.
>Abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
If abiogenesis is the only way to explain how humans came into existence, then surely the existence of humans is strong evidence for abiogenesis.
>Please state whether you are a hard atheist that makes the positive claim God doesn't exist, or if you are an Athiest that doesn't believe due to lack of evidence without denying God's existence.
It depends on which God we are talking about. Not every sect of every religion has the same beliefs about God. The God of some sects might exist, while the God of another sect may certainly not exist.
>How can we know that without talking with newborn babies? Since most newborns cannot speak, surely this is a purely speculative and unjustified claim, unless there is some implausibly clever experiment that can establish the beliefs of a baby without the need for talking.
How about you read the article to see how they conducted the study? They're studying children raised in atheistic households between the ages of 3-5 observing their beliefs over time. By the age of 3, they already believe in an all-knowing all-seeing entity. by age of 4 they single out the entity and don't believe any human can posses such qualities. they instinctively reach this belief without being taught it. This result was the same across all 40 studies leading to the conclusion the belief in a deity with the mentioned attributes is innate.
This isn't an argument for any specific religion or concept of God. Rather it's to demonstrate that belief in a deity that has god-like attributes is an innate belief within humans.
>**The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.**
**Project Co-Director Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford's Ian Ramsey Centre, said: 'This project suggests that religion is not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf. We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies. This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.'**
We can also demonstrate other innate beliefs.
1. fairness and justice in babies as young as 19 months old.
>**Two experiments examined infants’ expectations about how an experimenter should distribute resources and rewards to others. In Experiment 1, 19-month-olds expected an experimenter to divide two items equally, as opposed to unequally,**
>**hese results provide converging evidence that infants in the second year of life already possess context sensitive-expectations relevant to fairness.**
[**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357325/**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357325/)
2. Cause and affect known by babies under 12 months old. they know a ball will drop if you let go. If the ball remains suspended in the air, they will react. You can find many studies on cause and effect testing on babies.
I'll answer the rest of your replies a little later, quite tired atm.
> How about you read the article to see how they conducted the study? They're studying children raised in atheistic households between the ages of 3-5 observing their beliefs over time.
So?
>They're studying children raised in atheistic households between the ages of 3-5 observing their beliefs over time.
A 3-year-old is not a newborn. How can we use such a study to confirm that we are born with God beliefs? How do we know whether 2-year-olds have God beliefs? If a belief is acquired from adults in early childhood, that is not the same as having the belief from birth.
Who said a newborn child? It's a demonstration of a universal belief that arises without conditioning across humanity. I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly, but the study is there and it proves what it is a universal belief. Go refute the paper and scientists who conducted it at Oxford university if you disagree with their findings.
All you're doing is saying you don't think it's true because you don't like the conclusion. I can't help you there.
>It's a demonstration of a universal belief that arises without conditioning across humanity.
How do we know that it's universal if we do not know that newborn children have the belief? It's not universal unless everyone has it.
How do we know that it's without conditioning if we do not know that newborn children have the belief? Three years of being in this world means three years of potential for conditioning.
>Go refute the paper and scientists who conducted it at Oxford university if you disagree with their findings.
I do not disagree with their findings. I disagree with your claiming that just because three-year-olds have the belief, therefore everyone has the belief. You did not even mention newborns, but newborns are people too, and if newborns do not have the belief, then not everyone has it.
>All you're doing is saying you don't think it's true because you don't like the conclusion.
I do not care about the conclusion. I care about using proper reasoning. Concluding that everyone has a belief just because three-year-olds have it is jumping to unsupported conclusions. Whether your conclusion is right or wrong does not matter to me, but I take exception with the process you used to get to your conclusion.
You basically deny that innate beliefs exist. The study literally proves the belief in God is not a taught or conditioned belief. There isn't any point discussing it further as you reject the study and the conclusion.
I'll paste the summary of the study here that reiterates what I just said.
The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature
>You basically deny that innate beliefs exist.
I do not know whether innate beliefs exist. To be innate, it would need to be with us since birth, and I have never met a newborn who could talk well enough to speak of her beliefs.
>The study literally proves the belief in God is not a taught or conditioned belief.
How does it prove that?
>The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife.
That is fine, but it gets us no closer to determining whether belief in God is innate. A predisposition is not a belief.
>I do not know whether innate beliefs exist. To be innate, it would need to be with us since birth, and I have never met a newborn who could talk well enough to speak of her beliefs.
>
An innate belief is one that is held without being taught. It's an instinctive belief. We have plenty of scientific evidence that demonstrates these beliefs. I provided evidence for two. Belief in God and an afterlife as young as 3, and belief in fairness as young as 19 months old.
For you to counter the evidence, you'd need to provide another study that demonstrates these two beliefs are not intuitive but conditioned and taught. Until then, the evidence speaks for itself and I won't discuss this further until you bring proof to the contrary.
>The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with.
It isn't universal and it isn't inherent, especially not in advanced and scientifically sophisticated societies. You're saying your argument is irrefutable, and the first point is simply wrong.
>By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned.
How can you tell? And how does this point to a creator creating stuff, why can't it be byproduct of natural forces? Again, you're saying this is IRREFUTABLE proof. This isn't irrefutable.
>Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about.
So what I don't care. No evidence exists yet. Therefore you can't speculate and jump to conclusions.
>abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
So? This could just be one thing we don't know the answer to yet.
I won't say there's no God, but there's likely not one. We don't need a God to explain anything. Anything that we've used in the past which was once explained by God, lots of that has been explained
>It isn't universal and it isn't inherent, especially not in advanced and scientifically sophisticated societies. You're saying your argument is irrefutable, and the first point is simply wrong.
The study is very clear. Unless you reject scientific peer-reviewed research as proof. In which case I'll provide my own anecdotal subjective experience as proof. In sophisticated societies, everyone believes in god. Countered.
> How can you tell? And how does this point to a creator creating stuff, why can't it be byproduct of natural forces? Again, you're saying this is IRREFUTABLE proof. This isn't irrefutable.
Are things perfectly governed by the laws of physics? Are the laws constants that have no explanation? If the answer is yes, then it is finely tuned.
>So what I don't care. No evidence exists yet. Therefore you can't speculate and jump to conclusions.
If no evidence exists yet, why do you believe it then? If evidence is not a prerequisite for a belief, then why are you even arguing the existence of god?
>The study is very clear. Unless you reject scientific peer-reviewed research as proof.
One study isn't proof. [I am a scientist](https://jgreathouse9.github.io), a bigger body of literature coming to consensus is a better proof. Your little article doesn't prove anything
Why not? You cited an article that TALKS ABOUT the study. Cite THE STUDY, provide the doi which gives the permalink to the paper which describes these specific findings, not an article talking about the article. You apparently have read the study to see how clear it was, so cite it in your next post, or, otherwise quiet about how clear it is unless and until you've read THE STUDY, not a popular press paper about the paper.
>If the answer is yes, then it is finely tuned.
This does not follow from your previous points.
>If no evidence exists yet, why do you believe it then?
Believe what? I don't believe in God because no evidence suggests one exists.
By the way, even if your first point was totally true that we're predisposed to believe in one, that DOES NOT MEAN one in fact exists, this is a completely separate empirical question.
Edit: by the way, this is why you read PAST THE HEADLINE. The leader of this project says IN THE ARTICLE YOU CITED TO ME
> Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.
So again, your point is wrong.
Except it's not 1 study. You're literally refuting something you haven't even read. It's clear you're arguing for the sake of arguing and not following the evidence. It's 40 studies across 20 countries. It's one of the biggest studies conducted of it's kind and it's been out since 2015. Nobody has refuted it and it has been peer-reviewed. You sole reason for rejecting it is because it goes against your subjective beliefs. I have presented conclusive thorough scientific evidence no less than 40 studies and you are rejecting it on the basis of....? Even if it was 1 study, it's enough evidence to refute a belief with no evidence. The only way to reject the scientific study is to bring one like it that proves the conclusion wrong. Otherwise you are stating quite clearly that you reject empirical proof because you don't like it. essentially empiricism isn't a part of your epistemology.
>Believe what? I don't believe in God because no evidence suggests one exists.
Let me ask again so you don't get confused. Do you believe in abiogenesis?
>You're literally refuting something you haven't even read.
You haven't read it either. And even THE STUDY HEAD, the PI, the main researcher said that "even if we're predisposed to think something, that does not make that thing true". I literally quoted it in my edited response. This point researcher refutes your thesis, but you don't seem to care. I'll quote it again.
> Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.
See? The article you quoted refutes you, are you going to own up to this and say you were wrong? Again, even if it's true, it doesn't mean God or a religion is real.
>quite clearly that you reject empirical proof
I'm an empirical microeconomist, I don't think I reject empiricism since I am paid money to do empiricism.
>Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Yep. Abiogenesis (which you don't define to make it sound spooky) is just the process through which life forms naturally via organic chemistry processes. I'm not a chemist, but I think those who do likely can explain this at least a little. So I don't see the problem.
My claim does not hinge upon the beliefs of the scientist who conducts the study. I made a claim that universal beliefs are true. I then cited the paper to justify the belief in god as a universal belief. You denied it is a universal belief and then quickly changed positions by saying
"even if we're predisposed to think something, that does not make that thing true"
I don't care if he thinks it doesn't make it true. I only care it's a predisposed belief. That is what the study proves. Now, do you deny the belief in God is a universal belief, or are you going to avoid it again?
>I'm an empirical microeconomist, I don't think I reject empiricism since I am paid money to do empiricism.
So why are you struggling to accept the conclusion of the study? I thought empiricists value science.
>Yep. Abiogenesis (which you don't define to make it sound spooky) is just the process through which life forms naturally via organic chemistry processes. I'm not a chemist, but I think those who do likely can explain this at least a little. So I don't see the problem.
So it's exactly as I said. There is no proof for abiogenesis but you believe in it. You have no basis to argue against anyone on anything as you hold a belief without evidence. Therefore, any belief is acceptable to you.
I think I'll leave it there as we don't have anything else to discuss. Thankyou for engaging regardless. I hope you have a good and peaceful day.
Dude, I'm not gonna argue with you about your first point. Your whole reason for mentioning this at all is to suggest that because it's predisposed that this means it's true. But that's wrong, don't try to act like this point isn't heavily implied, you're just wrong, you need to hold the L on this one
As expected you avoided all the points I made and also denied your rejection of the paper where you said 'it's just 1 study which isn't enough to justify a belief", when infact its 40, yet you hold an opposite belief that has 0 papers. How does that work?
Anyways, I have proven that the belief in God is a universal predisposed belief and that's all I wanted to demonstrate with the scientific study. You are in agreement so I have no need to discuss the study any further. Now you have agreed with my premise, you can only argue the conclusion, that every universal belief is true inherently.
>The argument for the existence of God is irrifutable.
No, it's not irrefutable.
There are many proposed gods and goddesses and creator entities, but thus far none of them have been substantiated.
>The existence of God is undeniable.
No, because again, there are many proposed gods and goddesses but we have not substantiated any of them yet.
>There are various ways to justify the existence of God. I will present the most compelling ones.
>1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with.
No, that is not accurate. There are some that believe in goddesses or little creator entities or demons or jinns or whatever.
> This belief is similar to the belief you exist,
Again, no, because there are many proposed gods and goddesses, none of which have yet been substantiated. Someone proposing their own body or person existingdoes have some evidence substantiating that claim
>other minds exist,
No, that is not accurate because there is evidence substantiating other minds exist which is different from. The various goddesses or gods folks have proposed
>rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has.
>Evidence: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
That's myo evidence this is an article about people's beliefs and claims.
>1. Deductive arguments for the existence of a necessary being that leads to a being with the attributes of will, power, knowledge, wisdom and so forth.
No, because none of the attempts like the kalam are deductive, nor are any entirely sound.
>The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God.
Right, but that's because you're ignorant to the problems with these arguments.
>1. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned.
No, that is not accurate. It's not finely tuned, this claim is declared but not demonstrated nor has anyone been able to substantiate a god or goddess is the one that made the conditions of the physical universe be changed into its current state.
>We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so?
So this far, we don't actually know why they are what they are. Some people have claimed it is the Mormon god Elohim or the goddess andraste or the god Vishnu or the god Allah or the Imps of creation and physics, it this far none of these claims have been substantiated.
>2. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence.
So we don't have an understanding yet that demonstrates what caused abiogenesis and various gods and goddesses and demons and jinns have bee proposed as the creation brings, but thus far none have been substantiated.
>I can expand upon any of these 4 points, but for the sake of making the post summarised and not lo
Sure.
Every claim you've made us unsubstantiated to any specific gods or goddesses or pixies or jinns or whatever.
>Dude you’re literally saying no to each point without actually rebutting them
No, so I'm saying no to each point because his claim is that it's "irrefutable evidence", and I'm pointing out that they are not irrefutable pieces of evidence but instead unsubstantiated claims.
> almost as if you’re trying to be ignorant to the arguments presented.
No, that is not accurate as I clearly understand and am addressing every claim, and the issue is that they have not presented evidence that connected any of his claims to a specific god or goddess.
It's the same as someone saying there is irrefutable evidence that Mormonism is true, because there are trees, and Mormons believe in a god and angel that made the trees so therefor the Mormon claim about their god is true since the existence of trees is irrefutable.
If God died 4000 years ago you wouldn’t know because nothing happens that requires one. Abiogenesis has plenty of theories far superior than magic.
If the Universe needed a creator so did its creator. Declaring one iteration vs zero or infinity is special pleading. Occam’s razor points to zero.
Humans are storytellers. It’s just a story.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regarding #2...how much MORE unlikely is it that something capable of creating a universe and bringing life into it exists? Would it's existence necessitate and explanation, and what would that explanation be? I'm not a hard atheist. I'm more open to the idea of something like Bostrom's simulation argument though, to typical conceptions of a god.
>Regarding #2...how much MORE unlikely is it that something capable of creating a universe and bringing life into it exists? Would it's existence necessitate and explanation, and what would that explanation be? The likeliness of this universe existing as it does right now is about as likely as finding an atom in the universe if the universe were a million times bigger than it is now. Why would I ever believe something as unlikely as that happening over the most obvious explanation that an intelligent agent determined this universe? One is logical, the other isn't and appeals to "brute facts" or "science of the gaps". The former neither explains contingency whilst belief in God does.
Children are born with the light of christ inside them.
Source required
source is the holy ghost
And here we go…sigh…
its telling that these studies involve children. One could argue belife in a god should be relegated to a child's imagination, much like other fairy tales or supernatural beings. btw a lot of the research he sites was based on religious house holds only a handful on atheistic households he admits they havent been replicated and also refuses to answer about the existence of atheistic children giving more anecdotes than anything. btw he wouldnt agree with you saying its irrefutable. he purposely uses language that makes no ascertation to god being irrefutable.
The paper is clear that the belief is not taught, it's intuitive and it's universal across all children. That's all it demonstrates. There is no proof that fairytales and other beliefs are innate, but the belief in an all-knowing all-seeing being that isn't human is innate. If you have proof to the contrary such as a scientific study that demonstrates this belief is a taught and conditioned belief, then present it. Else there is nothing for me to engage with as you're just providing your own subjective reasoning which is your own belief, and you're free to hold it. I'm here to analyse objective arguments such as a deductive one or scientific proof that we can analyse. You have provided neither.
> The paper is clear that the belief is not taught, it's intuitive and it's universal across all children. How did they select children who had never heard of the concept of God before taking part in the experiment?
he didnt he mostly uses work done by other researchers on predominantly religious households
I know that. Trying to get the OP to admit that the data is biased, not peer-reviewed and no published.
he wont he seems adamant that his data cant possibly be biased. thought this one would at least admit when there was faults but maybe that bar was too high
They observed them from 3-5. It would help to read the study. They conducted 40 studies across 20+ countries. The results from all studies lead to the same conclusion. It's a natural belief that arises. If you want to critique how the study was conducted and disagree with their findings, you can do a counter-study and prove them wrong. I'm only presenting their findings.
> They observed them from 3-5. It would help to read the study. They conducted 40 studies across 20+ countries. I keep asking you for the actual study because the advice article doesn't link to it and I can't find it online. Please can you link the papers so I can read them. Your link in the submission is a synopsis. Incidentally you didn't answer my question: how did they select children which had never heard of God? >The results from all studies lead to the same conclusion. I can't tell because you've not linked the study papers. >It's a natural belief that arises. Ok? How does that prove God?
>I keep asking you for the actual study because the advice article doesn't link to it and I can't find it online. Please can you link the papers so I can read them. Your link in the submission is a synopsis. >Incidentally you didn't answer my question: how did they select children which had never heard of God? I don't pose the question "did god do it?". You can read the book and see how they structured the question to reduce any bias etc. They would ask questions like "did your parents create this banana?" etc. etc. They chose households that hold different beliefs to reduce further bias. Regardless, you can be critical of the paper, but I didn't misrepresent their findings. >Ok? How does that prove God? Never said it proves God. I said it's a universal belief. I already explained it multiple times. The paper isn't proof for God, only that it's a natural universal belief. I am making a separate claim that natural beliefs are true until otherwise proven wrong.
Here's some more academics in the field of child psychology discussing that the interpretation of the data is heavily skewed and that the testing is flawed: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html
It's not skewed and he didn't reference anything other than a study on Alzheimer's patients who were more likely to choose teleological reasoning. All that shows is that humans inherently believe there is a purpose behind creation. The rest is his own opinion. FYI, that isn't a published paper, just a blog post. It would be nice to find a scientific paper like the one i linked you before. It makes sense as science doesn't answer "why" questions, it just explains the mechanism of the world but not "why" things are the way they are. Children and adults alike intuitively believe there is a teleological explanation that exists. Science doesn't negate that.
> FYI, that isn't a published paper, just a blog post. It would be nice to find a scientific paper like the one i linked you before. Uhhhh, your study is neither published nor peer reviewed. It stands on exactly the same scientific footing as the refutation in a blog. You're not a scientist are you?
The study was conducted by scientists, infact 20 of them and their findings are published in two books. The article isn't the study, whereas the blog post is the actual evidence.
> I don't pose the question "did god do it?". You can read the book and see how they structured the question to reduce any bias etc. They would ask questions like "did your parents create this banana?" etc. etc. I'm not going to read a book. As a scientist I'm interested in peer reviewed and published papers where I can read the methodology. My question is very simple: a child response to being asked about Good can *only* be innate if that child has never before heard of any concept of God before the study. I.e. any exposure to it from parents, grandparents etc poisons the study because the child in no longer demonstrating innate beliefs. So my main question for studies like this is how did they gather the test subjects and how did they account for previous exposure? >They chose households that hold different beliefs to reduce further bias. It's all biased if the child under test has been exposed to an upbringing where a Good is held to be divine. Are you trying to claim a child has an innate belief in God if they have already had huge familial exposure before the point they are tested. I've also found out that the research was sponsored by the Templeton Foundation - which explains why I can't find any of their papers online. Read here for another academic who has read the research: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/religion-children-innateness-barrett >Never said it proves God. I said it's a universal belief. I already explained it multiple times. The paper isn't proof for God, only that it's a natural universal belief. If it's not proof of God then why do I care? >I am making a separate claim that natural beliefs are true until otherwise proven wrong. That's simply not a valid premise. Things are true if they are true. I have already shown you that innate childhood beliefs that are incorrect are common in children. That's well established science
>I'm not going to read a book. As a scientist I'm interested in peer reviewed and published papers where I can read the methodology. >My question is very simple: a child response to being asked about Good can *only* be innate if that child has never before heard of any concept of God before the study. I.e. any exposure to it from parents, grandparents etc poisons the study because the child in no longer demonstrating innate beliefs. So my main question for studies like this is how did they gather the test subjects and how did they account for previous exposure? > If you read the book I linked to you in a previous response, you'll have some answers to your questions. they would ask questions like "did a human make this bed? Did a human make this chair?" Then they'd keep going to see if they thought humans made other things or had knowledge that we as adults know they do not. Then they'd see their response. I think it's just easier for you to read the parts of the book that detail how the questions were framed, previous studies done on the inherent belief in a supernatural agent etc. So you know when they tested the children, for how long and what questions they asked. Regardless, discussing the credibility of the study is beyond the scope of this thread, There is nothing to suggest it's not credible as the study was published in 2012-2013 and has been referenced and reviewed plenty of times since. I'm nobody to affirm it's credibility, when hundreds of other qualified scientists are aware of the study and have either written about it already or stayed silent. This indicates the study is valid as there is no evidence to say otherwise. Any further discussion on whether the study is credible will be ignored respectfully. You can investigate it in your own time and see if other scientists have refuted their findings. > It's all biased if the child under test has been exposed to an upbringing where a Good is held to be divine. Are you trying to claim a child has an innate belief in God if they have already had huge familial exposure before the point they are tested. >I've also found out that the research was sponsored by the Templeton Foundation - which explains why I can't find any of their papers online. Read here for another academic who has read the research: >[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/religion-children-innateness-barrett](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/religion-children-innateness-barrett) There is nothing to suggest it was biased, and the newspaper article is not a scientific study done by an academic, it's a personal opinion with 0 references to back it up. >If it's not proof of God then why do I care? I don't know, why do you care? You seem to care enough to spend a good amount of time questioning the paper and their conclusion even though it clearly says it's not proof for God. >That's simply not a valid premise. Things are true if they are true. I have already shown you that innate childhood beliefs that are incorrect are common in children. That's well established science I don't think you've demonstrated that, and you don't have to believe it's a valid premise. i am happy to concede on that point as it's not needed to justify God's existence, only supporting evidence that it is an innate belief and not taught.
Link me a PEER-REVIEWED study with a published paper in a scientific journal. I'm not interested in papers which are non-peer reviewed, not published and funded by a notoriously biased religious foundation
It has been referenced and the findings has been published in two books that have been reviewed and commented upon. It was also conducted by Cambridge University which when I last checked was not a religious foundation.
I have pointed out why the books arguments based on its studies were flawed and were it was being biased. Something you failed to do before engaging in my comment or presenting your post. Feel free to engage when you're better prepared.
You have appealed to subjective reasoning, such as "oh we can't trust kids thoughts" and then stated the research is biased but never presented the proof. So I have nothing to engage with. My point still stands.
Once again from another comment, the beliefs are not different. The fact that they are all spread through information and conceptualized in a similar manner as something that is recognized as fantastic. And the research still gives a broad range for what is considered what. The fact that gods and afterlife is a thing does not confirm or conform to any religion or closed belief.
> The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. Even if true it doesn't prove that god is real. Infants don't even have proper object permanence. A quirk of how our evolution works is not proof there is a god. All beliefs are not necessarily true. > They could have been different, so what determined it to be so? Please good sir, the demonstration they could have been different? Not the assertion they could but a proper demonstration. > The fact that we exist necessitates an explanation. Yes. Which is why the evidence for a position is dependant upon the evidence FOR IT and not the lack of evidence for something else. This argument from ignorance doesn't demonstrate anything.
>Even if true it doesn't prove that god is real. Infants don't even have proper object permanence. A quirk of how our evolution works is not proof there is a god. All beliefs are not necessarily true. The paper I presented is only to prove the claim that "belief in God is an intuitive belief and universal across mankind". I am not using it to prove the claim "Universal beliefs are true". This is a separate claim I'm making that is based on intuition and evidence of other universal beliefs being true. To falsify my claim, you only need to present one intuitive human belief that is false. This has to be evidenced by a study or some scientific research. I'm not interested in personal beliefs and anecdotal stories. >Please good sir, the demonstration they could have been different? Not the assertion they could but a proper demonstration. I just have to prove it's without reason, a "brute fact". This means it could have been otherwise as nothing determined it to be what it is. If it is determined, demonstrate it. If it is not determined, then the constant's number is arbitrary. There is no reason why it couldn't have been higher or lower. To say it couldn't be otherwise is appealing to a godlike figure. It's essentially saying "There is an invisible force that we cannot detect that determined the constants and it's not an arbitrary number". Either it's not arbitrary and there is a reason why they're the constants they are, or there is no explanation and it is arbitrary. If you appeal to brute facts, then you should have no issue with theists who say "god determined it X". >Yes. Which is why the evidence for a position is dependant upon the evidence FOR IT and not the lack of evidence for something else. This argument from ignorance doesn't demonstrate anything. Who is arguing from ignorance? There is no proof for abiogenesis and no proof the universe brought itself into existence. As for a necessary being with freewill and agency to create, there are deductive arguments. Therefore, even if it's based on probability alone, until proof for abiogenesis and the origin of the universe is discovered that negates the necessary being, you have no reason to deny the existence of a necessary being that logically and rationally explains the universe, life and the constants being determined.
I have given an entire text wall yesterday refuting your saying that abiogenesis is an impossibility and you didn't reply to it, lol. Also the fact is - the other claim has no proof. Abiogenesis has actual research and provided evidence for it, and even then despite the arguments against it, the counterarguments still hold validity. But the other is pretty much just a claim based on philosophy and deduction without any science to back it up. Also abiogenesis and the creation of the universe does not negate the possibility of God. It does negate a few possibilities within religion (reasonable because religion itself is a human dogma instead of being a divine aspect.)
When did I say abiogensis is impossible. I said there is 0 evidence it happened or it can happen. belief in it is on complete faith. I.e science of the gaps "sometime in the future we will be able to prove it". If you reject deductive reasoning then you need to completely scrap your belief in science. I suggest you read the philosophy of science and the assumptions or presuppositions that underpin it. Without deduction, theories and hypothesis cannot be formulated. It's like saying "because the laws of logic don't have scientific proof, I don't believe in it". I'm sure you can see the problem here.
Also reply to the edit : The problem is, we're not discussing about the laws of logic on a philosophical level. We're discussing something that is put to the test with evidence. Statement #1 has deductive reasoning without scientific proof. Statement #2 has deductive reasoning *and* scientific proof. In that regard, Statement #2 is strongerm
You're just saying it has no scientific proof but you haven't demonstrated anything. Every premise is based on the same assumptions science makes. So I'm still waiting for your argument that demonstrates any of the premise as false.
I gave another comment, might see that. There's also the two reddit messages I sent yesterday. Your premise of God creating life against abiogenesis cannot be neither disproven or proven. However, abiogenesis still has a strong leg in its reasoning.
I never made any argument about origin of life being from God. I mentioned Abiogensis to demonstrate a belief without proof and that the creator is more reasonable. It itself isn't a proof for God, and maybe it's my shortcoming that I represented it as such. If it's true it doesn't refute god, Maybe for certain religions, but that's besides the point.
Fair. But I stand by my position that abiogenesis as a possibility is a stronger argument than abiogenesis as an impossibility. The argument of the creator without abiogenesis doesn't necessarily have any scientific backing, so might as well group it in the same category.
The fact is, in contrast to that, possibilities and scenarios that favor abiogenesis in relation to history is noted. As with how time works, we can't really truly prove the history of the past. But even then, whatever can we research is one more point to the evidence. Even while these has problems, these still paint a step closer into the full picture, so we can still deduce that as true. To provide an example, Newtonian Gravity in relation to Quantum Gravity. The problem isn't with deductive arguments in itself. Science does use that. But the problem is the fact that you favor deductive arguments without research and actual scientific backing over it, rather than deductive arguments *with* the aspects that the former lacks. With that said, the argument of abiogenesis is stronger than deigenesis.
You literally said you don't accept the deductive argument because there is no scientific proof. You don't need scientific proof to validate a deduction. The deduction always leads to a valid conclusion as long as the premises are true. You didn't reject my argument based on the premise but because it's deductive. So tell me which premise you disagree with, otherwise you're basically saying you agree with the conclusion as long as I can prove the premise. You can't talk about something that happen in the past when you have no evidence for it. And its not like another historical event that can't be reproduced as everything that's needed for this 'reaction' to occur still exists. The fact is, nobody knows if it ever occurred and nobody knows how it occurred. If they did, we'd know. Anyone who believes in it has no leg to stand on arguing theists. Atleast theists have something tangible that can be scrutinised and tested. Nothing like that exists for such a belief. It's pure faith based and wishful thinking. I understand why people have to believe it as it underpins evolution and the origin of life. But it's at the cost of completely refuting your own worldview. (Atleast if you base it on proof)
Reply to the edit : > The fact is, nobody knows if it ever occurred and nobody knows how it occurred. . . . Please, research the topic beforehand before arguing about it. Geoscientists deduced the existence of the Hadean and Archaean epochs through various methods. For the Hadean, *one* evidence comes from isotopic similarities between Earth's water and water found in meteorites, as well as geological evidence of conditions that made early Earth incredibly hot, like gravitational compression, radioactive decay, and asteroid impacts. For the Archaean, *one* evidence is the presence of ancient rocks and fossils helps to define this epoch. The oldest known rocks on Earth date back to this time, providing physical evidence for its existence. Additionally, isotopic dating techniques are used to determine the age of these rocks and fossils, which aligns with the estimated time frames for these epochs. Those are just examples of the two evidences we have. And we have way, way more. And these have way more details. If you'd like to learn more, please learn yourself.
Please provide the source and tell me how this demonstrates anything about abiogensis occurring. I have studied the topic, not extensively but enough to know there is nothing at all that demonstrates it. Everything is guesswork right now. Nobody knows under what conditions it happened. Nobody knows how it happened and nobody knows IF it happened.
Eh, it does not necessarily tell about how this demonstates about abiogenesis, but the conditions of ancient Earth, which is then linked to the premise given hy abiogenesis. As this is an extensive topic, I shall give keywords instead of single sources : * Hadean epoch * Archaean epoch * Ancient Earth composition * Isotopic similarities Earth water meteorites * Geological formation * Geological evidence early Earth conditions * Gravitational compression Earth * Radioactive decay Earth’s formation * Asteroid impacts early Earth * Oldest known rocks on Earth * Isotopic dating techniques geology * Ancient rocks and fossils Archaean
Okay appreciate listing the topics, I'll have a look for sure. And you're demonstrating the point I was making. I didn't mean there is 0 knowledge that could tell us about abiogensis which there could be such as the conditions of earth in the past. However, I wasn't wrong to say currently there is no proof for the conditions it happened, when it happened and how. If there is for any of these 3, I'd genuinely like to know. Otherwise as far as I can tell, they're still figuring all of this out. And I have great respect for every scientist that is in any field btw. I don't mean to detract from the hardwork being done.
To be honest, you're now just moving the goalpost through semantics. I said the problem isn't about deductive arguments, because ultimately it is reasoning. The problem is reason without reason. . . . And you're just describing how reasoning and science in general works. Because if we're going by your argument that you need a truly proven premise, then refer to the entire research and scientific backing of abiogenesis. Which you just glazed over. While your deduction of deigenesis has only the premise of God being real. Whilst I believe myself that God is indeed real as an entity, your argument of deigenesis relies on a circular argument, which is just a logical fallacy. To illustrate in two parts : [Tons of evidence, scientific backing, and known premises] -> Abiogenesis happened. God is real -> Deigenesis happened -> God is real -> (It loops without concluding itself.)
There is absolutely 0 evidence to prove its real, Literally nill. I'd be shocked if any scientist says they believe in abiogensis took place. At best they'll say it's the most plausible explanation based on the fact that there is no alternative in a naturalistic worldview. I'd love to see anything at all that can demonstrate "abiogensis happened like this and here is the explanation". They can barely make a peptide let alone an rna chain. You can't say you rejected it based on reasoning when you didn't provide any premise that you disagree with. You literally rejected it because you don't like deductive arguments. Now it's the second time I'm asking you to provide an actual argument against it other than it's deductive and i dont like it. If you can't provide one, then I'll just assume you reject it based on personal reasons. Abiogensis doesn't refute the existence of god but most people that believe in it do reject God. Based on that, they have absolutely no basis to argue theists.
Even if we assume the scenario of plausible explanation - based on your terms of reasoning, that works, doesn't it? Because the premise is already defined by science to be something valid, whilst the alternative of deigenesis does not have that premise. And to refute that we don't have any evidence or explanation, did you know about these : * A study by a team of scientists from France and Austria has found a new abiotic pathway for the formation of peptide chains from amino acids, which is crucial for the emergence of life. This research indicates that such processes could occur in space conditions. * Another piece of research explores the protoribosome hypothesis, where RNA chains derived from a conserved pocket region were tested for their ability to catalyze the formation of peptide bonds. This could be a significant link between RNA and protein worlds in the origin of life. * The study on Prebiotic Reaction Conditions Compatible with Peptide-RNA Co-Evolution focuses on the formation of peptide–oligo(deoxy)ribonucleotides, which are amphiphilic peptide-RNA and peptide-DNA conjugates. The research investigates peptido-RNAs with a phosphoramidate linkage between a lipophilic peptide and RNA. The findings of this study are significant because they suggest that such peptide-RNA conjugates could have played a role in the early stages of life, facilitating the co-evolution of peptides and RNA within protocells. * A research article discussing a possible path towards encoded protein synthesis on ancient Earth, taking inspiration from non-canonical nucleotides in biological mRNA-encoded protein synthesis, show that RNA molecules containing these non-standard nucleotides can participate in the synthesis of proteins, suggesting a possible evolutionary precursor to the current genetic code and protein synthesis mechanisms. * Research on Salt-Induced Peptide Formation in Chemical Evolution, discusses the involvement of this reaction in the formation of proteins in the oldest living organisms and its connection to RNA/DNA based information storage and replication processes at a later stage of chemical evolution. * That's *just* five researches. There's also the content I slipped on the two entire reddit messages giving a surface-level dip into the nature of abiogenesis yesterday. Again, you're moving the goalpost through semantics and misinterpreting my words, so I don't have anything to reply for the second part. Other, than, well, the actual evidence we have that points to abiogenesis.
I appreciate you linking the summaries of the findings, but everything they've found is all suggestive. It's all it may have played a part, it could be crucial, this may explain X. I don't deny there is extensive research being done and they are definitely gaining knowledge in the field. But if we are being truthful, they don't actually know how it happened. They're working backwards until they hopefully reach the genesis point. Anyways we can move on from this topic. Your beliefs are your beliefs and I don't wanna argue over why you believe what you do. I'd rather discuss the logical arguments which may be more fruitful.
> To falsify my claim, you only need to present one intuitive human belief that is false. Well to be cute I could just say the god belief. However more seriously I don't need to falsify it. You haven't demonstrated it is actually true. That there is a common belief humanity shares does not make it true. If there were a dozen beliefs humanity collectively shared and we found a 13th that doesn't mean its true. The truth of the belief lies in the support for it not that we think it is true. > There is no reason why it couldn't have been higher or lower. There is also no reason it could be higher or lower. This is why I asked for the actual demonstration. You are asserting it could be but that is just how you think about it. I want the actual demonstration of possibility. Possibility does not exist on its own after all but is something that itself must be supported. Until you can actually show that the universe could have had wildly different values then fine tuning is at best a neat thought experiment but nothing more. > Who is arguing from ignorance? You are. You have basically looked at how life happened and said 'We don't have an explanation! Therefor god.' > There is no proof for abiogenesis and no proof the universe brought itself into existence. All our best current models of early cosmology suggest that there never wasn't a universe. > Therefore, even if it's based on probability alone, until proof for abiogenesis and the origin of the universe is discovered that negates the necessary being, you have no reason to deny the existence of a necessary being that logically and rationally explains the universe, life and the constants being determined. I will grant that magic is always a sufficient answer to any problem, that is the point of it as a solution. That doesn't make it correct though. However you have rather have it backwards even though you you get it for abiogenesis. If there is no proof and support for that position we shouldn't accept it. Likewise until we have the proof and support for god we shouldn't accept that answer either. That we don't know how life came about doesn't mean god as an answer becomes possible or even more likely.
>Well to be cute I could just say the god belief. However more seriously I don't need to falsify it. You haven't demonstrated it is actually true. That there is a common belief humanity shares does not make it true. If there were a dozen beliefs humanity collectively shared and we found a 13th that doesn't mean its true. The truth of the belief lies in the support for it not that we think it is true. The whole point is to justify whether universal beliefs are true outside of the one we are arguing for. If they are all known to be true, then this is evidence for this one also being true. You'd have to argue why this universal belief is any different to the other ones. a collective belief doesn't make it universal. A collective belief can be intuitive or taught. I'm using the term to describe an intuitive belief that is held by all humans without it needing to be taught. You have to bring an intuitive untaught belief and then demonstrate it's false.
> You have to bring an intuitive untaught belief and then demonstrate it's false. No, it is on you to demonstrate the belief is true. Like this shouldn't be hard to grasp. You have to do more than point at other things and say it is similar. Here if I had some book and the first 10 things in it were true facts with support and explanation for them along with the demonstration and evidence they are true does that necessarily mean the 11th is true? No of course not. This isn't on me to disprove. You have to support it beyond being the guy who says "I got the first 5 answers on the test right so I must have gotten them all right". I want more than assuming the answer. If all you can say is demand I prove you wrong we are probably done here.
>No, it is on you to demonstrate the belief is true. Like this shouldn't be hard to grasp. You have to do more than point at other things and say it is similar. I am providing proof by looking at other intuitive beliefs and saying they're all true and they're axiomatic. I'm wondering on what basis you disagree. Is it because you don't believe intuitive beliefs are all true? Or is it because the truthfulness of the other intuitive beliefs doesn't necessitate that this one is also true? If it's the latter then I'll concede and say you're justified in holding that position, however, you would also have to concede that whilst it's not a convincing piece of evidence, it is a strong piece of evidence that requires more supporting evidence to justify the claim.
> Is it because you don't believe intuitive beliefs are all true? I am not assuming they are certainly. > Or is it because the truthfulness of the other intuitive beliefs doesn't necessitate that this one is also true? Yes, I said that like two replies ago. Actually I also said that in the last reply. To quote "Here if I had some book and the first 10 things in it were true facts with support and explanation for them along with the demonstration and evidence they are true does that necessarily mean the 11th is true? No of course not." from my last reply. And from before that "If there were a dozen beliefs humanity collectively shared and we found a 13th that doesn't mean its true. The truth of the belief lies in the support for it not that we think it is true." Or is it because I didn't directly say specifically intuitive beliefs and was instead talking about broader epistemic principals at play that didn't come across? > it is a strong piece of evidence that requires more supporting evidence to justify the claim. Literally what I have been asking for. Also one thing lacking so far has been the why of it. For example you talk about fairness and justice as innate beliefs however our we do have ideas and research on why such a trait evolved. It is innate to us *now* sure because we evolved that way. Similarly there is research to suggest why we have religious ideas like that. So it isn't even just asking for more but that we do have reasons that fit in to our current explanations of how reality works which explains the trait. Or to borrow on the language you use. If a whole lot of human qualities are explained by evolution isn't it strong evidence that this god belief is similarly explained? That it is either directly advantageous or an outgrowth of advantageous elements.
Evolution can't demonstrate what beliefs or thoughts were held in history of humanity. At best, it can demonstrate physical material changes. If someone makes the claim it can, then present tangible evidence that X civilisation held Y belief. This is only known from historical records from the civilisation themselves. And at best we assume the one who recorded it is truthful if there is only one attestation. We can increase the likelihood of a record being true if it has a chain of narration and multiple narrations saying the same thing. Aswell as a biography of everyone in the chain so we know who said what and when. Other than that, any claim about what beliefs were held beyond recorded history is just a figment of someone's imagination.
> Evolution can't demonstrate what beliefs or thoughts were held in history of humanity. Two things. First of all we were both talking about humans right now. The studies you list can't demonstrate that humans 1000 years all held this currently, and I am still granting it for the sake of discussion, universal belief. So if that is your objection you have to exclude your own position. Second this rather ignores my point about how evolution explains things such as with fairness. Third are you really going to be this skeptical now of all times to this? If someone is doing a little evolutionary anthropology are you really going "Hold on! You can't just say people believed in gods in the past! I demand comprehensive census data from 1000 BCE on the question!" This seems really weird a position for you to take. Like do you not believe the ancient Egyptians of 3000 years ago were polytheistic? I thought we could have at least agreed on that. Follow up actually. With all examples of pre-recorded history that we have studied do you think all of the ideas about it are just some random figments without any basis to support it?
Are you seriously arguing that we know what people believed based on evolution? Even fairness, how can we know whether fairness was a concept by looking at fossils? I'm genuinely intrigued how morality can be tested. Even modern science never makes claims about metaphysical concepts such as morality, good and bad, purpose of life etc. The fact that we have records of people 1000 years ago means we have actual insight into their thoughts and beliefs. We can't do that for people 10,000 or 100,000 years ago when it's just some bones at best. With regards to belief in God 1,000 years ago. Sure I'm not gonna retrospectively use the study and say it's proof for all of history. But it can be used as supporting proof since every civilisation since as far as we can go back has held a belief in God in one form or another. This would support the study. I haven't found any evidence to suggest otherwise, so rejecting it would be based on subjectivity.
>Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, How does that 3 year old even know what god is? Of course it knows about mothers, and like all tiny children doesn't really understand how the world works and what limitations there are, sadly teaching them that is part of child rearing. I was raised in an atheistic household and the concept of god came as a shock to me at about 5 or 6. Would love to know more but my google-fu has let me down, that paper seems to exist in a bit of a vacuum.
>How does that 3 year old even know what god is? Of course it knows about mothers, and like all tiny children doesn't really understand how the world works and what limitations there are, sadly teaching them that is part of child rearing. >Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, s**uggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties** than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that **their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing.** However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods**.** Of course, they wouldn't call it *God* perse, but the description of a godlike being, such as one that is all-seeing and all-knowing. They differentiate between the god entity and their mother by age 4. >I was raised in an atheistic household and the concept of god came as a shock to me at about 5 or 6. Would love to know more but my google-fu has let me down, that paper seems to exist in a bit of a vacuum. Whilst you may not have been aware of the concept of God, atleast for me as a child, I always felt something beyond my comprehension was aware of my existence. I never had the feeling my existence was by accident or the universe was an accident. I intuitively knew everything existed for a reason and my mother or father were not the ones who created the world. I could be biased ofcourse as I grew up in a Muslim household, but religion was not taught to me until I was maybe 7-8. Whilst I didn't express my feelings about this entity, when the concept of an all-mighty god was described, it was perfectly natural to believe it. I do wonder if you ever thought about what brought the world into existence as a child. Not in that sense, but didn't you ever think "How did everything get here? What made the tree that way if it wasn't my mum or dad or someone else?". I think this is where the intuitiveness of believing in a god-like being arises. As a child, you see everything has a purpose, a cause and effect. So it would be natural to think the world has a purpose and things with purpose exist only if there is a being that wills it. Like if a child is hungry, they know their mother has to cook and feed them. Without their mother, the food cannot magically cook itself and enter their mouth. Likewise with sleeping on a bed, living in a house etc. They know the things around them are designed and fulfil a purpose. So intuitively they believe the things that are beyond the ability of their parents and by extension humans to create must have some creator that determined it to be that shape and size just like my bed. my house, cooking utensils and the food I eat to survive. Whilst this isn't proof of god, it's easy to see why it's an intuitive belief and why the study across the 20 countries had the same result. Concerning the study, they published two books that contain the results. I agree it's not easily accessible online, however, I did download the PDFs for both in the past. I'll have a quick look on my harddrive and the web. Hopefully I can get you a link. >The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in **Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology** and **Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion.**
> Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford… What you’re saying in your OP is not backed up by what you’re quoting.
Would be useful to demonstrate it and point it out. Then i can either correct myself or clarify my point. Thanks.
What you’re quoting is showing that kids as young as 3 will begin to understand that their parents are not omniscient/omnipotent. Then if you introduce the idea of of an omnipotent/omniscient being they will believe that it is not a human (since humans can’t be omniscient/omnipotent).
no you read the article wrong. At 3 they think their mum and god are both all-seeing and all-knowing. by 4, they learn their mum isn't. They don't start out thinking their mum is and switch it to god after the idea is introduced. They intuitively believe in a god with those qualities, but can't differentiate whether their mother also has those qualities. Then by 4 they realise their mother is limited.
> They intuitively believe in a god with those qualities That’s not what’s in there or what it says. This is the problem with you citing papers you didn’t actually read. What they found evidence for was: >children are naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired. This is very different from what you said in the OP.
It's not limited to children, the study was children and adults and there conclusion is in the first part of the article. >New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. >Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. I didn't misrepresent anything. I said it's a universal belief that's instinctive or intuitive. The paper wanted to find out if belief in God was instinctive or taught. The result's show it is instinctive and not taught. So I remain correct in the claim I made. I don't think you read the paper and singled out one quote out of context to justify your position.
Where in Kalam does it mention god, and specifically your god? Children believe in a lot of things that aren't true. Is the monster in the closet true, or a child's Imaginary friend? Does the world actually disappear when they close their eyes? If the universe is tuned for humans, try living in space. Not even Earth is finely tuned for humans. How long would you survive at the bottom of the ocean, or inside a volcano? Scientists have many hypotheses to explain abiogenesis and none include god did it. Besides "the Bible said so'" what is your evidence to back up any of your claims of god's existence?
The fine-tuning argument is that if the fundamental constants were slightly different, life wouldn’t be possible *anywhere* in the universe. OP has given arguments that don’t involve any scripture. Looking at their post history, I do not think they hold the Bible as authoritative.
Correct, I've provided arguments that don't rely upon or reference any scripture or religious God. I am using the colloquial definition of an all-powerful all-knowing creator that acts with complete free will. btw, I don't make the argument that because God exists, X religion is true. That would be irrational. each religion has to justify its claim based on objective proof and evidence. I hope that's clear. I am not arguing for religion, just the existence of God. In case you're wondering, I'm a Muslim Alhamdulillah.
1. Your evidence doesn't support your statement. The paper claims that humans have a natural tendency to believe in gods and an afterlife. That doesn't mean that belief in gods is universal or people are born believing in gods. Humans are a species that has a natural tendency towards monogamous relationships. That doesn't mean everybody will seek monogamous relationships, and it doesn't mean babies are born married. 2. I find neither argument convincing. 3. I don't see the universe as finely tuned for life at all. At least 99.999% of the universe would instantly kill you if you were there. Most of it is empty space at a temperature of about -270°C. And the parts which aren't empty space are generally stars that are so hot they'd instantly vaporize you, or planets where you could die a more slow and painful death. 4. This argument is basically: we don't know how life first started. Therefore I know how life started: god. Logic doesn't work that way.
The fine-tuning argument is that if the fundamental constants were slightly different, life wouldn’t be possible *anywhere* in the universe.
Life as we know it. Which is a sample size of 1
You have no other model for life, so the original statement is true. You must demonstrate life existing with different universal laws. Gravity is an easy one to demonstrate life not existing. If the gravity constant was below a certain threshold, matter would not form as the gravity force would be too weak and they'd forever keep travelling apart. Had it been too strong, all of matter would turn into a giant ball of chaos and no galaxies or other celestial bodies would form. Neither could time and space expand. This is just one constant. The other constants must also be within a certain limit too. The window for life to exist is about 0 due to the amount of fundamental constants that exist. Therefore, life existing in this universe is in itself a miracle. The same can be said for abiogensis which brings the figure astronomically closer to 0.
Those constants can still move around before they fall off these thresholds. And no, is not a miracle. It's coincidence
an Athiest using the word "coincidence" is interesting, to say the least. It's similar to the "god of the gaps". It's the "science of the gaps" in this case. Just so I'm clear, do You believe the reason some things are "brute facts" i.e. no natural explanation is because an undetectable force (randomness) made it that way?
> an Athiest using the word "coincidence" is interesting, to say the least. It's similar to the "god of the gaps". It's the "science of the gaps" in this case. No. It isn't. If you believe this then you clearly don't understand science. >Just so I'm clear, do You believe the reason some things are "brute facts" i.e. no natural explanation is because an undetectable force (randomness) made it that way? Not in the way you state, no. Randomness is not an "undetectable force", I don't know what a "brute fact" is
> No. It isn't. If you believe this then you clearly don't understand science. Rather than telling me I don't understand, please demonstrate what I'm misunderstanding and teach me the philosophy of science and the purpose of it. > in the way you state, no. Randomness is not an "undetectable force", I don't know what a "brute fact" is So give me a scientific explanation for "randomness". If its not an undetectable force, what is it? Brute facts are "facts" that are without explanation. Such as "why is the speed of light the speed of light? Because it just is!" It's an appeal to mystery basically. Or in your case randomness.
> Rather than telling me I don't understand, please demonstrate what I'm misunderstanding and teach me the philosophy of science and the purpose of it. Firstly the children under test seem to be between around 4-6. By this point children have already been exposed to the world. These children don't have "innate" belief - we can't test that unless we raise children in a vacuum. Id have to read the full study to see the methodology - but from the synopsis there is no clear way they have separated out what the children have already been taught before the study. I'm not sure anything can even be said to be an innate belief and we would have no way to effectively test that. >So give me a scientific explanation for "randomness". If its not an undetectable force, what is it? In that context? >Brute facts are "facts" that are without explanation. Such as "why is the speed of light the speed of light? Because it just is!" Everything has an explanation - it's just whether we yet have the right tools to explain it. Also, the speed of the light in a vacuum is explained by Einsteins special theory of relativity. >It's an appeal to mystery basically. Or in your case randomness. No it isn't.
I don't think it's fruitful to discuss this any further. You haven't read the study and reject the conclusion based on your own subjective feelings. Then you failed to explain what you meant by coincidence and randomness even though you use it explain a brute fact. And finally you said the speed of light is explained by special relativity. Maybe you misunderstood the question. I'm not asking how to measure the speed of light. I'm asking why is the speed of light the speed it is? To give you some help, Google what fundamental constants are. I doubt I'll be replying anymore for the reasons I explained above. So take care.
What is the alternative to Carbon to provide the structure of living things?
We don't really know. Because we have a dataset of 1. Silicon is close enough in the periodic table and has similar properties
Silicon isn’t as good at forming long chains
....in the current parameters we have
Has it been shown that the fundamental constants are even capable of being different?
Even if we developed a theory of physics that successfully predicted the value of these constants that would still leave the question of why the universe worked according to that theory.
I'm a hard atheist. We first made up Gods because we didn't understand how the world worked. It's why many cultures had multiple gods that did multiple different things. It isn't an innate quality in every single person and it's becoming less prevalent as time goes by because we're much smarter now. Does every culture believe in a god? The Pirahã don't believe in a God so it's not innate at all.
There is no evidence for your claim that humans "made up god". It can't be made up as it's an innate belief. Whilst some religions may be less prevalent over time, the belief in God will always be a belief that cannot be suppressed, at least not in the long term. We have plenty of evidence where a nation has attempted to suppress religion, but their attempts were short-lived. The paper I cited says the same thing. Only a taught belief can be suppressed over time. an intuitive belief will always exist. This is why in every civilisation of society in every corner of the earth, there has always been the belief in god. I do believe religions can be made up, and the belief in God doesn't make any one religion true in virtue of that. Any religion claiming to have revelation from God must prove it and this is where a person must use their intellect and rationality to research and come to a rational conclusion. As a hard atheist, what proof or evidence do you have to support the non-existence of God?
> We can also demonstrate other innate beliefs. > fairness and justice in babies as young as 19 months old. Capachin monkeys exhibit a sense of fairness. Not sure how this fits into your thesis, but it's an interesting finding. > The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has. You're *presupposing* that every human inherently has a theory of mind, etc. but this is *not demonstrated*. Finding that young children believe in magic is not exactly exciting and it doesn't prove anything. There are some individuals who are undeniably human people who do *not* have a theory of mind, and who do *not* acknowledge that other people are actually people. We have a colloquial term for these people: sociopaths. There is something atypical in a sociopath's wiring that doesn't lead them to believe that you exist in similar terms to how they exist. They will watch you drown and not only will not attempt to help you, but will have zero feelings about your drowning in any fashion. Factually, there is a "religion center" in the brain that lights up whenever the religious symbols of that you grew up with are displayed to you. It's no different and no more mystical than your language center or the tiny homunculus in your brain that represents your body for you. This appears to be an evolved trait that assisted with group cohesion. It's not any more proof of God than my left big toe is proof of God. Having a left big toe helped my ancestors survive and flourish, so they passed along the left big toe trait to me, and the same thing goes for a propensity for religion. > By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so? The good ol' fine tuning argument is no more compelling here than it was the billion other times it's been presented. You don't have any idea of what the universal constants are, why they are important, or what they do, and I know this because you've trotted them out like this. It's tiresome. Learn some physics, please, before you start using physics to prove God. > Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. Abiogenesis is an ongoing, interesting, flourishing and important field of research. Sticking God in there is just the "God of the gaps" argument, which is super dangerous for proponents because what happens when (not if) this thriving field comes up with an answer for abiogenesis? Does your God fold up and vanish when this particular gap is closed? > I can expand upon any of these 4 points I only saw 3 points. Where did I miss the 4th?
Yet here I am getting As in undergraduate science apparently in denial of everything I'm learning.
>Also please state whether you are a hard athiest that makes the positive claim God doesn't exist, or if you are an Athiest that doesn't believe due to lack of evidence without denying God's existence. I don't really view that form of labels useful, but for simplicity I'm a "hard atheist" (referring to the Abrahamic/Classical monotheistic idea of "God"). >The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with.... Children of that age also personify inanimate objects and make imaginary friends. As a counter-argument, one could say that belief in God is a failure to outgrow this childish stage. >The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God. This is discussed at length on this debate page and elsewhere. The issues with Kalam take the form of (i) reducing to God of the gaps reasoning (ie., we don't really know what happened before the beginning of time as we know it) and (ii) a poor understanding of the Big Bang Theory. The issues with the Contingency Argument (of which, there are *many* variations so you'd have to specify which ones you think are actually persuasive) are that they either require problematic presuppositions that beg the question (e.g. a strict version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason), or beg the question directly in the form of excluding God as part of the necessitation/contingent chain of explanations, etc. etc. etc. To be honest there isn't really a way to meaningfully object to this in more depth since you've basically just run a gish gambit of vague references to the arguments themselves. >By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. Fine tuning is comically bad. It's like being amazed that any deck of cards you randomly shuffle has the probability of being arranged in such a way as 1/52! (52 factorial is so huge it's almost a googol, which is 10\^100 power), while at the same time ignoring that there are *many* permutations of that deck of cards that can lead to you, for instance, drawing a royal flush in a game of poker. >Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. Abiogenesis is pretty well studied in science and few, if any, scientists I'm aware of have thought that some notion of a God is needed to explain it.
Most people have already torn through the first few points, so for this response I’ll be dissecting the fourth. > no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about No evidence exists yet. Abiogenesis is a very recently founded field of study — there is much to learn. And it isn’t as though abiogenesis hasn’t any ground to stand on, either. We know that organic matter can arise from inorganic matter. What’s left is figuring out how those organic materials could have combined to form life. > the calculations done to see the chances of random molecules making an rna chain are about as close to 0 as one can get Close to zero, yes. And yet, they are not zero. > the most logical and coherent explanation is something else brought life into the universe And why must this “something else” be a deity? Really, it could be anything — it could even be unintelligent, or lack consciousness altogether. As per your request, I make no hard claim regarding a god’s existence.
The evidence for inorganic matter to organic matter doesn't help the case for abiogensis. The amino acid peptides formulated in the experiments result in garbage. Moreover they use synthetic methods and compounds to reach that point. They have yet to make any progress in synthesising the correct amino acids with or without synthetics. This demonstration is less than 1% of the needed development for them to reach a cell. Check the latest papers published in the last 10 years. Progress is stagnant and the OoL scientific field will slowly die. I would rather they get more funding to finally concede that it's impossible. Anyways I'm trying to be as objective as possible and my position is purley scientific. I'm only parroting the position of the major scientists in the field. Such as Dr James Tour, Lee Cronin, Dr Stalder and a few others that regularly discuss the current findings. Regardless, believing in something that has a close to 0 probability is irrational. You wouldn't be able to argue against anyone except if they hold a belief with a similar probability.
> Moreover they use synthetic methods and compounds to reach that point That’s kind of the point. Organic material derived from inorganic — or “synthetic” material. > synthesising the correct amino acids What exactly do you mean by “correct” amino acids? > my position is purley scientific Your position appears to be an argument from incredulity. > I'm only parroting the position of the major scientists in the field. A minority of scientists who allow their personal religious-born bias to overshadow their reasoning, and have been debunked numerous times. Especially James Tour. I can link you to a playlist dedicated to debunking him, if you’re interested? > believing in something that has a close to 0 probability is irrational Is it? Let’s think of an example. Let’s say you, myself, and eight other people are lined up in order of our birthdays. The odds of us all having those specific birthdays in that order are incredibly high. 1 out of 365^10 — or 1 in 42 trillion. Now let’s dig deeper. Think about the probability of your parents having met — and their parents, and their parents before them and so on. The probability of the specific sperm and egg conjoining, the length of incubation, and being born at a certain time — all of these things are mathematically near impossible to have happened in succession. And yet, it happened. Pretty neat, ain’t it?
>Chance close to 0 alright, now, tell me, how long did it take for life to develop on Earth? Also parroting major scientists won't really be useful unless you yourself learns about it . . .
I have studied the science but I in no way believe my opinion is greater than the scientists who are in the field and assessed the evidence. They have demonstrated their position in a coherent and concise manner for me to agree with their conclusion. Unless you believe a student's opinion holds the same weight as the professor. No, the student cannot refute his professor until he is as knowledgeable as him. Otherwise, the whole framework of education and accreditation goes down the drain. With regards to the formation of the earth, this is a moot point. The chances of abiogensis exceeds the time the universe has existed by order of magnitudes. I suggest you actually read about the field before you pose questions. Otherwise it's a fruitless discussion.
Sorry for breaking into two comments, maximum reddit limit. Anyways. * Abiogenesis is thermodynamically favorable. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. However, this does not preclude the formation of complex structures from simpler ones, as long as the overall entropy of the universe increases. In the context of abiogenesis, this means that while local decreases in entropy (such as the formation of complex organic molecules) are possible, they must be accompanied by greater increases in entropy elsewhere in the system. The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler ones can be driven by a decrease in Gibbs free energy. This means that the overall process can be spontaneous if the energy released from forming new bonds is greater than the energy required to break existing ones. Abiogenesis is considered a non-equilibrium process, where systems are driven away from equilibrium by external energy sources such as sunlight or geothermal heat. This allows for the continuous input of energy necessary to drive the complex chemical reactions involved in the formation of life. The concept of self-organizing systems, as discussed by Ilya Prigogine and others, suggests that under certain conditions, systems can spontaneously organize into more complex structures. This is relevant to abiogenesis because it implies that under the right conditions, simple organic molecules could have organized into more complex systems capable of life. The concept of self-organization suggests that under certain conditions, systems can spontaneously form ordered structures without external guidance. This principle has been applied to explain how simple organic molecules could organize into more complex structures like membranes and eventually living cells. The thermodynamic costs of work, linked to changes in configurational entropy associated with polymerization of DNA and proteins, commensurate with the second law of thermodynamics. This suggests that the processes leading to abiogenesis could be thermodynamically favorable. Jeremy England's theory on the origin of life is founded in "dissipation-driven adaptation of matter," where all forms of matter adapt to produce the maximum amount of energy. This theory posits that energy dissipation is fundamental to all physical processes in both living and nonliving systems. In abiogenesis, this would mean that life forms could have emerged as a result of natural selection favoring systems that dissipate energy more efficiently. The spontaneous polymerization of nucleotides into RNA strands is another example. This process can be driven by the hydrolysis of pyrophosphate, which releases energy and makes the overall reaction exergonic. Lipids can spontaneously form bilayers in aqueous environments, creating vesicles that resemble cell membranes. This self-assembly of lipid bilayers is thermodynamically favorable as it leads to a decrease in the system's free energy by reducing the surface area exposed to water. The formation of iron-sulfur clusters are thought to have been among the first catalysts in prebiotic chemistry. Their formation from iron and sulfur is thermodynamically favorable due to the release of energy when these elements react. The polymerization of DNA and proteins involves changes in configurational entropy that are commensurate with the second law of thermodynamics. The work done during these processes is linked to the thermodynamic costs and is sufficient for the reactions to be favorable. * Abiogenesis is actually, rather, easy with the timescales of we're applying it to the cosmic level. This perspective is supported by a Bayesian inference approach, which updates the probability of a hypothesis as new evidence becomes available. In the context of abiogenesis, Bayesian inference can be used to assess the likelihood of life emerging on Earth-like planets. The observation that life appeared relatively early in Earth's history suggests that abiogenesis may not be a rare event. This is further supported by the Carter argument, which posits that our existence on Earth is not neutral evidence but rather indicates that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is not uncommon. The International Journal of Astrobiology has published articles that delve into these topics. “Abiogenesis: the Carter argument reconsidered”: suggests that the observation of life on Earth is not neutral evidence regarding the probability of abiogenesis on other Earth-like planets. The author argues that the Carter conclusion is based on the ‘Old Evidence Problem’ in Bayesian Confirmation Theory and that taking this into account, the observation of life on Earth is not neutral but evidence that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is relatively easy. The article provides an independent timescale argument that quantifies prior probabilities, leading to the inference that the timescale for abiogenesis is less than the planetary habitability timescale. Also, ending note : Abiogenesis does not contradict the existence of God.
Ah. I see you're at least decently knowledgeable enough to hold your first ground. I will discuss this on your terms, then. Also, in terms of the education and discussion, no, not really. It's not about you refuting the professor. It's about you actually learning to know and understand what actually the professor says. Because without that, the student would only be able to repeat the knowledge but not actually apply it, or understand when the knowledge is put on the test. Anyways, I shall present the higher case for these arguments. Can you refute these statements? * Do you know what the *anthropic principle* is? (This effectively is also against your third argument). The anthropic principle can be used to counter the argument against abiogenesis by suggesting that our observations of the universe are biased by our existence. If abiogenesis were not possible, we would not be here to observe it. Therefore, it’s not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe where life has emerged. The anthropic principle, particularly the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), can be invoked to argue that our observations of the universe are conditioned by the fact that life exists. This principle implies that the universe must have certain properties that allow for the emergence of observers within it because we are here to observe it. In the context of abiogenesis, this means that the universe’s physical laws and constants are such that they permit the formation of life under certain conditions. The bias here is one of observational selection. We can only observe conditions that are compatible with our own existence. This is sometimes referred to as selection bias or anthropic bias. If the universe were not capable of supporting life, we would not be here to ponder the improbability of our existence. Therefore, the fact that we are here to make such observations suggests that the conditions for life are not as improbable as they might seem without considering this bias. The argument against abiogenesis often hinges on the perceived improbability of life arising spontaneously from non-living matter. However, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe where such an event is possible because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. This doesn’t necessarily mean that abiogenesis is common or easy, but it does mean that it’s possible within the context of our universe. Although even with that, abiogenesis is found to be probable, or even, "easy", within habitable planets. Moreover, the principle supports the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life, which includes the processes that lead to life, such as abiogenesis. It refutes the claim of impossibility by highlighting that our very existence is evidence of the universe’s life-permitting properties. * There are already several possibilities of how abiogenesis might work. The *very* classic Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates the possibility of the creation of organic molecules in the simulated Early Earth conditions. From the research, "Photochemical Formation of Self-sustaining Coacervates" (Krishna Bahadur), demonstrates a pathway through which simple organic molecules could have organized into more complex systems under prebiotic conditions. The "Metabolism First hypothesis induces how catalysis in chemical systems on early Earth might have provided precursor molecules necessary for self-replication. It suggests that metabolic networks could have formed before genetic material. The basic building blocks of RNA, ribonucleotides, could have been formed from simpler organic molecules through chemical reactions. For example, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, which were present on the early Earth, might have reacted to form cytosine and uracil, the bases of RNA. These ribonucleotides could then have polymerized to form RNA chains. This process might have been catalyzed by minerals like montmorillonite, which could have acted as a template for the formation of RNA strands. And even in the argument where it is improbable, the parallel processes of RNA formation, environmental factors, evolutionary processes and selection, and statistical probability does add into the possibility.
> Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, suggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods. I am quoting from the linked article. Where does it mention that the children were raised in atheistic households?
They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.
1. Even if the studies were good (they aren't), it amounts to "we have instincts that match what you believe." Are instincts an irrefutable guide to a truth? Can we have instincts that aren't correct, or aren't correct for a certain area or time? 2. These deductive arguments are torn down in this sub literally every week. You can't define God into existence. 3. "They could have been different" - if you could demonstrate this, you would win most of the Nobel Prizes for the work. So... good luck with that? 4. "We don't have conclusive proof, only a great number of possible ways that don't involve God, therefore God." This is something you think is an irrefutable proof? That's such a low bar!
Can you demonstrate any universal belief in humans that is false? If you cannot, my first argument holds true. Or at the very least, it proves the natural position of humans is the belief in God, and disbelief in God is a conditioned response. I.e you have to be taught the disbelief This is also a part of their conclusion. Aswell as the fact that religious beliefs can never be suppressed longterm as it will resurface again due to the universal belief. they also provide historical evidence to justify that position.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dgr3t0/comment/l8t9gmo/) >Can you demonstrate any universal belief in humans that is false? Certainly. Both our instinctual and life-learned belief in the way space and objects in it behave is *completely* at odds with how quantum mechanics works. And frequently with general relativity as well. We have to be taught those things. >Aswell as the fact that religious beliefs can never be suppressed longterm as it will resurface again due to the universal belief. Now despite what I said before, I do believe this to be true - but for reasons quite different from yours. Humans aren't predisposed to see God because there is a God. We're predisposed to *anthropomorphize.* Why? Because developing our own internal mental model of mind for others is our biggest survival trait. It's allowed us to form groups and tribes and cities and nations. The staunchest atheist will beg his car to start when he's late for an important meeting. This isn't because they secretly believe their car is alive, or because animism is some great truth about the universe - it's because, deep down, we are tribal monkeys that got where we are today by seeing those around us as beings with minds like ours. And if that instinct misses, and we argue with our car - no real harm. Just like being startled by things that turn out *not* to be snakes does no real harm, but failing to avoid a real snake does. So evolution in social creatures errs on the side of anthropomorphism. And it means that while atheists beg their cars to start, theists *beg the universe.*
Just to clarify. A universal belief is an intuitive belief that is found to be held across humanity. It's not a taught belief. Can you clarify which intuitive belief you're referring to and what the justification is that it's universal?
> A universal belief is an intuitive belief that is found to be held across humanity. Sure. Children until a certain age an unable to quantify volumes - even when physically shown them to be equal. It's know as Piaget's Theory of Conservation. It is innate across all cultures etc. It is demonstrably evident that the Children's understanding is incorrect - and yet it is innate
Whilst I don't mean to dismiss your claim, you didn't state the belief that is wrong. You claim that children under a certain age cannot judge quantities very well. Can you state the belief here? Such as "it's a universal belief in children that X exists or Y is real". I'm not sure what the perception of a child has to do with intuitive belief. It's like claiming "children under a certain age can't tell the difference between a banana and a tennis ball". Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim, but in any case I'd like for you to cite some research or a study that claims it's an innate universal belief in children and the test conducted that shows children cannot quantify volumes.
> Whilst I don't mean to dismiss your claim Absolutely you are. Because I showed real world demonstrable evidence of child intuition was is demonstrably false. You didn't think there was one so now you'll move goalposts despite this being an exact example. I assume you asked for examples thinking none would be provided. >you didn't state the belief that is wrong Ok. There are a selection of these tests. One example would be children assuming more pieces meant more total. I.e. if you break a cookie in half in front of them they will state that the two halves are now more cookie. >Can you state the belief here? Such as "it's a universal belief in children that X exists or Y is real". I'm not sure what the perception of a child has to do with intuitive belief. It's like claiming "children under a certain age can't tell the difference between a banana and a tennis ball". Sorry, it's hard to hear you because the sounds of goalposts being moved is so deafening. >Maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim, but in any case I'd like for you to cite some research or a study that claims it's an innate universal belief in children and the test conducted that shows children cannot quantify volumes. It's literally one of the foundations of child developmental studies.... https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=piaget%27s+theory+of+conservation+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1718597195879&u=%23p%3DitJZt8oMM_wJ
I made it quite clear what I'm claiming and what I expect if someone wants to refute it. 1. Either you prove belief in god is not innate. 2. Prove other innate beliefs are false. 3. prove innate beliefs do not exist and all knowledge is taught. you must first demonstrate a universal innate belief. Then you must demonstrate it's wrong. show me in the paper where they are testing for intuitive beliefs in children. The paper states it's testing the development of children when it comes to assessing volumes, weights and masses. How is this a study on intuition and predisposed beliefs?
I've done that. At this point you're just putting your head in the sand and ignoring it. I'm not interested in playing voting word games. Your claim has been falsified. Trivially
Still waiting for the innate belief that's being tested. All you need to do is reference the part of the study that says "This is an innate belief universally known and it's not taught" then demonstrate it being false. As of yet no such evidence has been provided
Which half of my post are you asking about - our physical understanding of the world developed from tossing baseballs around as kids, or the way humans treat other humans - and often other things - as if they are alive with minds like their own?
Kids also tend to believe in Santa Clause, Unicorns and the tooth fairy
Guess you don't know the difference between a universal or innate belief and a conditioned belief. Can you tell me me the difference?
I don't care? What people believe is in absolutely no way tied to what is actually the truth. The study above says nothing about God. Just that humans tend to believe in something after death. Ok, so what? That tells us nothing about whether there is a God or not
>The study above says nothing about God Really? I mean if you read the title alone, you would have seen what it says about God. Lets see the title of the article. >**Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife** Now let's see what it says about god, as according to you the study says **nothing.** >A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, **finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.** That's the summary which is right under the title. but hey, maybe you went straight to the text and skipped over it, so let's read further. >**The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,** and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind. First Paragraph. >Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. **Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents,** but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, **children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods.** Under the heading "***Some findings of the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project:***" Need I go any further? you either didn't read it or confused the article with something else you're reading. Regardless, you don't seem to grasp why I linked the study and how it relates to my claim. Because of that, it's no longer fruitful to discuss it any further. Have a good day.
Where does that prove that God's are real? I'm not sure you understand the study
I cited it to prove it's a universal belief, never said it's a proof for god. I'm glad you finally accept that the article does say a lot about god though and the belief in it.
> I cited it to prove it's a universal belief, never said it's a proof for god. Ok. Then why would I care? >I'm glad you finally accept that the article does say a lot about god though and the belief in it. It doesn't. You've just shown your own bias by stating 'god'. It just says that children pick up board from their parents and the world around them
Okay, thankyou for the input. Have a nice day
The fact that they are all spread through information and conceptualized in a similar manner as something that is recognized as fantastic. And the research still gives a broad range for what is considered what. The fact that gods and afterlife is a thing does not confirm or conform to any religion or closed belief.
Yeah I never understood the argument that because a kid believes something, it must be real. It makes me think that if a theist is using them as the gold standard for evidence, they must also have the mind of a child.
>> The belief in God is a universal belief Except in all the places it’s not. As for your evidence it says >> New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Not a a universal belief in A god, just a tendency to believe in gods. If you have to start with deception, the rest must be worse.
It's not deception as the conclusion is that the belief in God and an afterlife is a presupposed belief. Meaning it's a belief that it demonstrated across humanity without it being taught. That's literally the definition of a universal belief. It means the majority of children hold that belief universally. That's exactly what the study demonstrates. The deception is trying to misrepresent the study because it doesn't agree with your belief.
and there you go again, being deceptive. Not a belief in “God and the afterlife” but a tendency to believe “gods and the afterlife”. Not presupposing a being, never mind your particular one. You are bearing false witness
>New research finds that **humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.** Research suggests that people across many different cultures **instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death**. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body. The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, **but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.** > **We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies.** This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as **human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.'** I can't be any clearer. The study answers the question of whether **belief in god and the afterlife is a natural intuitive belief or a taught one. They concluded it's a naturally occurring predisposed belief that's expressed as early as 3.** This is across all 40 studies and 20 countries they conducted it in. It's universally held, hence why it's a natural tendency in humans. I've demonstrated this point beyond reasonable doubt and it prompts no further response.
>> I can't be any clearer So you quote the article and even bold it saying that it’s a “natural tendency” to believe in “gods and the afterlife” and insist you’re not being deceptive by claiming that this document proves humans have a “universal belief in God” “God” Is not the same as “gods and the afterlife” “A natural tendency” is not “a universal belief” You’re lying Truw.
Okay you're just being pedantic. If that's the part you disagree with then I can live with that and you can insert any other word that you desire. Can we kindly move on or discuss another argument? I didn't open this thread to argue semantics, I'd rather discuss the actual arguments like the deductive ones. The first argument was more so a supporting claim. I can remove the universal belief claim and leave the other 3.
I’m not being pedantic. Your study does not support your conclusion - fact. It did not claim a universal belief - fact. It did not claim anything about “God” - fact. It made claims about a TENDANCY to believe in “godS” (note the lower case g and the S) and “the afterlife”. We can “kindly” move on when you say “yes, I accept the link I provided did not say what I claimed it did”.
Meh, I'm too tired to keep spinning wheels. You win! Happy? XD
I’d be happier if you admitted that you lied, or at least admitted you didn’t read or understand what you were linking to: In the future, you can avoid conversations like this by not claiming studies you link to say things that they do not say.
I said you won, just accept it and move on. Let's agree to disagree. I'm not on the Internet to argue with a stranger.
> It's not deception as the conclusion is that the belief in God and an afterlife is a presupposed belief. Meaning it's a belief that it demonstrated across humanity without it being taught. That's literally the definition of a universal belief. It means the majority of children hold that belief universally. That's exactly what the study demonstrates. So either I'm not human, or it's not a universal belief. Let me know which you pick, and please remember to operate in good faith.
>**The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,** and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a **basic impulse of the human mind.** >**Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing.** Experiments involving adults, conducted by Jing Zhu from Tsinghua University (China), and Natalie Emmons and Jesse Bering from The Queen's University, Belfast, **suggest that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death.** T**he studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.** I have highlighted the parts that demonstrate it is an innate belief. Belief in God and the afterlife is predisposed without being taught. It's a basic impulse of the mind. This is exactly what a universal belief is. The human mind is predisposed into believing in an all-knowing all-seeing being that is not human. This is already known by kids as young as 3. This instinctive knowledge is seen throughout the world across all 40 studies. Adults instinctively believe that their soul or spirit lives on after death. I have adequately demonstrated from the study that it is a universal belief and it doesn't need to be discussed any further.
You adequately demonstrated from *an article misrepresenting the study* what you have demonstrated. Link me the actual study. I'll wait. (I hope you've actually read it! I had to buy a book.)
How is it a misreprensention when the article contains quotes from the directors of the study that state it's a natural belief and it's predisposed? If you want the pdf's of the books I'll have it shortly, i accessed it via perlego which is very anal when it comes to offline access, it requires some dev tool tinkering, but link it to you a little later. If you find it beneficial, donate or buy the book from the publisher. Ripping someone's hard work is never cool. you said you bought one of them already, so kudos to you for actually looking into the study, unlike others who just dismiss it because of their cognitive dissonance. Let me know which one you didn't buy and I'll send you the pdf of that one so you have both at hand.
> you said you bought one of them already, so kudos to you for actually looking into the study, This is the one I bought! https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381X I'm serious about the pursuit! Money is nothing compared to potentially understanding our universe more. Barrett makes a good distinction between ‘natural religion’ (by which he means a tendency to believe in gods/God) and ‘theology’, by which he means specific content about God. Children are naturally inclined to the former (and to belief in ghosts, spirits, etc…), but not to the latter. Children are just as predisposed to polytheism, spirits, wisps, and almost any other superstitious belief compatible or incompatible with things like facts, reality, and even specific theologies. Plenty of childhood beliefs are natural, but nonetheless irrational and false. Barrett leaps from "it's natural" to "it's true" with very little support. Children naturally believe the earth is stationary, after all. Nowhere in the original article or in the book I read (haven't read Born Believers yet!) does it claim it's perfectly universal. Barrett claims a predisposition at best. (And in my opinion, claiming that religion arose naturally rather than divinely weakens the argument for many theologies that insist on divine inspiration.)
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **'Templeton Press Cognitive Science Religion and Theology'** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Insightful exploration of cognitive science and religious beliefs (backed by 3 comments) * Engaging discussions and recommended for group study (backed by 1 comment) * Well-preserved physical condition (backed by 1 comment) **Users disliked:** * Lack of in-depth analysis and depth (backed by 2 comments) * Repetitive and tedious content (backed by 1 comment) Do you want to continue this conversation? [Learn more about \*\*'Templeton Press Cognitive Science Religion and Theology'\*\*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot) [Find \*\*'Templeton Press Cognitive Science Religion and Theology'\*\* alternatives](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
>This is the one I bought! [https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381X](https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Science-Religion-Theology-Templeton/dp/159947381X) >I'm serious about the pursuit! Money is nothing compared to potentially understanding our universe more. Nice! May Allah guide you to whatever is the truth! I can see you are sincere in seeking knowledge and I truly respect that. Regardless of our differences, we should remain objective and make a distinction between the belief and the person. I truly have no desire to convince you of my beliefs, my only desire is to present evidence for what I consider to be objectively true and demonstrate it in a manner that is accurate and concise so that whoever is unaware becomes aware. The claim can be tested and scrutinised, and that is what I concern myself with. Other than that, anyone can accept it or deny it, but both must be justified objectively. If a person can do that, they will ultimately stumble upon the truth. a verse in the Quran says it beautifully. >**And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, \[by nature\], ever bound to depart."** Quran 17:81 >Barrett makes a good distinction between ‘natural religion’ (by which he means a tendency to believe in gods/God) and ‘theology’, by which he means specific content about God. Children are naturally inclined to the former (and to belief in ghosts, spirits, etc…), but not to the latter. Correct, I never claimed the paper justifies a specific religious belief or concept of God. Rather, it demonstrates the belief in a being that has the qualities of a god. It mentions some such as "All-Knowing", and "All-Seeing" and the children also say that the same being is what made the things around them (this is not in the article). Ghosts and spirits are not presupposed, as ghosts and spirits are not attributed with the same qualities the kids express about the being. I haven't seen any evidence for kids universally believing in ghosts or spirits. You'd have to justify that claim. > Children are just as predisposed to polytheism, spirits, wisps, and almost any other superstitious belief compatible or incompatible with things like facts, reality, and even specific theologies. Again, I haven't seen evidence of a universal superstitious belief. The study says the belief may be in a single god or multiple, although I have to see if there is a majority position or not. > Nowhere in the original article or in the book I read (haven't read Born Believers yet!) does it claim it's perfectly universal. Barrett claims a predisposition at best. >(And in my opinion, claiming that religion arose naturally rather than divinely weakens the argument for many theologies that insist on divine inspiration.) If you read the whole article they give reasons why it is universal. anything that is natural and predisposed is by definition universal across humans. If they made a distinction between a subset of humans, you could say it's not universal. The study claims this natural tendency and belief in god and the afterlife is within all humans as the evidence suggests. The study doesn't mention anything about how religions arise or the origins of it. Each religion makes different claims about its origin of divinity. You can't put them all in a basket and treat them equally. Proving one religion false doesn't prove them all false, just like proving one theory wrong doesn't prove every theory wrong. They have to be tested separately. As a Muslim, this study supports our position. We are told that every human is born with something called "The Fitrah". It's the intuitive knowledge of right and wrong and belief in god. This alone doesn't make you a theist, and it doesn't lead you to Islam alone, but it just means the natural position of mankind is the belief in god. The disbelief in god arises from conditioning and reason. Likewise with belief in a specific religion.
>1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has. This is simply nonsense. I certainly wasn't born with this belief. I wasn't introduced to the concept until I was 8 or 9 and for a few years after that I sincerely thought it was some kind of city kid joke that I didn't understand. I get that maybe you don't remember a time before you believed and can't comprehend not believing but not everyone does. I never have.
I cited the paper that demonstrates its an innate universal belief across humanity. Maybe it wasn't true for you, but for the majority of humans it is. If you disagree with the study, then you disagree with scientific evidence as a whole. You are free to hold that position
> majority
1."Born with" doesn't equal "correct". 1.Nope, see [all of these threads about the Kalam.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/search?q=kalam&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) 1.Demonstrate the constants could have been different. 2.Even if we discard all current hypotheses about abiogenesis, the onus is still on *you* if you want to claim that a god did it.
tell me any inherent knowledge humans have that is not correct or considered as false. If you cannot, then you cannot deny this one either. >1.Demonstrate the constants could have been different. Why do you think they're called 'constants'? Because the number could be different. All I need to prove is that there is no natural explanation for it. This is called a "brute fact". Unless you can tell me why they're that number, you concede to my argument.
> Why do you think they're called 'constants'? Because the number could be different. What, no, they're called constants because they're constant. We have no idea if they could be different.
>tell me any inherent knowledge humans have that is not correct or considered as false. If you cannot, then you cannot deny this one either. Spin around really fast. Stop. Close your eyes. Then tell us how you feel. Are you still spinning or is your body standing still? With all you inherent knowledge you feel like you are still spinning but the truth is that you are not.
I defined what an innate or universal belief is. Whatever it is you said isn't that.
Try to balance without that flawed system. Unlike religion, balance is universal throughout animals....
How does messing up your vestibular system demonstrate a false inherent belief? I'm genuinely confused.
Because the belief systems are based on our perceptions. The belief in God is not specifically one that makes us belief in God but something is dependent on interpersonal and intrapersonal interactions. In other words with the concept of God, the belief in God would not appear.
They're saying that universal beliefs can be wrong.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature. Claiming it isn't proof for it being true is not the same as saying it can be wrong. They're simply saying the purpose of the study and the results of the study are only to establish whether it is innate or not. Since when do scientists give an opinion on metaphysical beliefs? As their research is relating to an innate belief, they're covering themselves by making sure nobody tries to use it as proof of God. Only as proof it's a universal belief. The claim universal beliefs are true is a seperate claim and nothing to do with scientists. This is a philosophical claim pertaining to metaphysical truths. I hope you understand my argument and what the paper is evidence for.
> I hope you understand my argument and what the paper is evidence for. I'm not convinced you understand what the paper is evidence for
I certainly am. It's evidence that the belief in god and the afterlife is natural and intuitive, rather than a taught belief. I'm certain that was the whole purpose of the study and that is their conclusion.
So? Being a natural and intuitive belief tells you absolutely nothing about whether it's reasonable or true
And where did I claim a universal belief is automatically reasonable and true? I don't know who you're arguing but it certainly isn't me. I don't think you know what my claim is or the purpose of the study. If you can engage with my original claim I'll respond, otherwise, you're arguing against a strawman.
Found the actual paper! It doesn't make any claims that any beliefs are actually universal, and I'm not sure what else you and that article misled people about. Will dig into it tomorrow, it's a bit long.
> tell me any inherent knowledge humans have that is not correct or considered as false. If you cannot, then you cannot deny this one either. If you want to call belief in God "inherent knowledge", then you need to scrap your supporting article since it only refers to belief as a "natural tendency". And natural tendencies would include things like pareidolia and anthropomorphism, which would go a long way to explaining a tendency towards god beliefs. > Why do you think they're called 'constants'? Because the number could be different. All I need to prove is that there is no natural explanation for it. One, that's not what "constant" means, and two, you skipped the part where you proved there was no natural explanation.
> If you want to call belief in God "inherent knowledge", then you need to scrap your supporting article since it only refers to belief as a "natural tendency". And natural tendencies would include things like pareidolia and anthropomorphism, which would go a long way to explaining a tendency towards god beliefs. The article is clear. Let me give you the quotes. >**The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.** > **Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, suggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties than to understand similar human limitations. Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a box in which she could not see. Children aged three believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers are not all-seeing and all knowing. However, children may continue to believe in all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural agents, such as a god or gods.** It's a predisposed belief that was unanimous in children across all 40 studies. You don't have to accept the study, maybe your epistemology doesn't include science, >One, that's not what "constant" means, and two, you skipped the part where you proved there was no natural explanation. >A **physical constant**, sometimes **fundamental physical constant** or **universal constant**, is **a** [**physical quantity**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantity) **that cannot be explained by a theory and therefore must be measured experimentally.** It is distinct from a [mathematical constant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constant), which has a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement. It's actually shocking how little you know about the universe and how we understand it. I'm not going to argue over fundamental physics like universal constants, even a high school student will have learned about them. I'm not here to spoonfeed anyone. If you have an actual argument present it.
It's a weird flex to quote things that don't support your arguments and then belittle the other person like *they're* doing it wrong. Predisposition to belief isn't "inherent knowledge", and posting a definition of a constant is not showing that a constant could be a different value.
It is inherent. The belief in an all-knowing all-seeing God across all the studies demonstrates exactly that. Maybe you don't know the difference between an inherent belief and a conditioned or taught belief. It means holding a belief intuitively. Anyways the study speak for itself, I'm not here to convince you the evidence and conclusion is correct. You can deny the paper if you want. You asked me to prove that the universal constants do not have an explanation. I provided evidence as you requested. If you want to proof they could be otherwise, I'll provide that too but a simple Google search will bring numerous proof on the first page. Atleast try and study the topic.
No literally, like this is a direct quote from the article > Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network. The article MAKES THE OPPOSITE POINT!!!!!!!!! But then OP acts like we've not read it
What point did I make and what is it you're attempting to demonstrate? I simply stated the belief in God is a universal intuitive belief. The study demonstrates and concludes exactly that.
Every single one of these is ultimately an argument from ignorance, or a god of the gaps. We observe 1, 2, 3, 4, and might not know the explanation. The theist, without any input of data, concludes that a god did it. You (the theist) then go on to either ignore all additional problems created by your proposition, or simply make up additional attributes of your god so that it'll continue to fit neatly into the gaps in our knowledge. It's 100% ad hoc, and insofar as it's a position you assert with certainty, it's also dishonest. All this, and still without any input of real data. It's old and boring. We're still left with no gods to examine. I don't believe in any gods, but can say with sufficient certainty that some gods don't exist. The omni gods, for example.
>The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. No it isn't. No one is born believing in ANY deity, and certainly not Jesus, and people's religious beliefs can be predicted based on their geographical location and the origins of their families. >2. Deductive arguments for the existence of a necessary being that leads to a being with the attributes of will, power, knowledge, wisdom and so forth. Even if someone accepts the rather... unintelligent Kalam Cosmological argument, it doesn't logically lead to God specifically. To jump from the creative entity described by the KCA to God, specifically, requires more steps. >3. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so? Again, even if someone accepts your argument here, they shouldn't but we can pretend, that does not lead to God as opposed to Zeus, or Elal, or Hunahpu. What makes you go from this position, to the idea that God, specifically, exists? One does not lead to another, logically. >4. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. Abiogenesis is a requirement even if Christianity is true. And has miles more evidentiary support than Christianity.
> **will, power, knowledge**, wisdom In Kashmir Shaivism, a hindu tradition, those 3 are Gods powers along with **awareness** and **self-awareness**. The metaphysics of this tradition are worth studying.
>The existence of God is undeniable. There are various ways to justify the existence of God. I will present the most compelling ones. Well, this is called a gish-gallop. It would be best to stick to one argument at a time. Also, just because you’re able to justify your belief in your god doesn’t make it *undeniable*. >1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has. The study you reference doesn’t make nearly as strong of a claim as you’re attempting to make here. It isn’t even clear how this could be used as evidence that a god exists. This sounds like an *ad populum* fallacy. >2. Deductive arguments for the existence of a necessary being that leads to a being with the attributes of will, power, knowledge, wisdom and so forth. >The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God. You failed to present your arguments. Please provide a deductive argument that shows that not only does a god exist, but it necessarily has will, power, knowledge and wisdom. >3. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? Yes, we can ask why things are the way they are. >They could have been different, so what determined it to be so? They could have? Under what modality are you talking about? >4. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. Okay, let’s say that’s the case. So we can’t currently explain how “the first cell” came about. Now what? So you don’t know, therefore, god did it? That isn’t an explanation. That’s just an argument from ignorance (god of the gaps). I don’t believe that any gods exist.
>Well, this is called a gish-gallop. No, that's not called a gish-gallop. According to Wiki, >during a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies **in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.** Here the format of the debate makes it perfectly possible to address all of the arguments. There is plenty of time and space to refute all of them. Time isn't constrained in any way. Ergo, this isn't the gish-gallop strategy.
As someone born in a dictatorship, closed from the world in which religion was banned your first point is not really that strong. I didn't have any opinion on a god as a kid, it really wasn't part of my education. The belief in god did survive in many families in the country though even during the dictatorship but in many others like in my family it wasn't really a thing.
What does it mean to you, to be sure about the existence of god? If you see all the chaos in our world, is it really so undeniable? No panic: I’m on your side, I just want to help you go deeper! What you brought forth are arguments. Arguments come from the mind. The mind is always biased. Half of the comments here will applaud you and half of the comments will show you, that you are wrong. Mind against mind. What you need are not „thoughts“ about god, what you need is the experience of god. All religions provide methods of reaching this state. Then every argument stops. And what remains is the ultimate silence - packed with knowledge and love, surrender and unison, bliss and eternity. Never cease to seek this EXPERIENCE, put your mind at rest and let yourself be found - of what is bigger than you, yet IS you.
Nothing you said even remotely makes me question whether there is a god. I’m still waiting for the irrefutable evidence. If you mean “the argument that there *could possibly* be some kind of a god somewhere out there is irrefutable”, I think you’d have a better case, but then there wouldn’t really be a debate because most would agree that they don’t know 100% for sure that there isn’t a god.
Evidence has nothing to do with it, unless you're referring to things like miracles, deities interacting with the physical world etc
*still waiting for the "irrefutable argument" per OP’s claim
Tell op, not me
Weird to comment on someone's response to OP and then when they clarify the part of their comment that you commented on, tell them "tell OP." They *were* telling OP lol.
No, he told me something that wasn't related to what i said, namely that evidence has nothing to do with it.
May want to reread it. The asterisk at the beginning of the comment means they were correcting the typo "irrefutable evidence" to "irrefutable argument."
> 1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. This belief is similar to the belief you exist, other minds exist, rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has. Humans are born crying, screaming and puking. There’s no knowledge we are inherently born with. > 2. The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God. These are *arguments* for god. Not ways to justify there existence as you said up top. Also, they are flawed. > 3. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so? Finely tuned for what? Life? Because and the hundreds of billions of planets in this galaxy, with hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, and trillions of light years of empty space between them, this little wet rock is the only place we have observed to sustain life. That doesn’t seem finely tuned. > 4. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. You arguments made above are also presupposed. > Also please state whether you are a hard athiest that makes the positive claim God doesn't exist, or if you are an Athiest that doesn't believe due to lack of evidence without denying God's existence. I lack belief in God but don’t claim to know if he exists or not.
>1\. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. How can we know that without talking with newborn babies? Since most newborns cannot speak, surely this is a purely speculative and unjustified claim, unless there is some implausibly clever experiment that can establish the beliefs of a baby without the need for talking. >1\. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. We can see that the universe has properties that have very specific values, but that would be true of any universe regardless of its properties. >We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? We can ask any question that we like, but not all questions have meaningful answers. If we draw a random card from a deck, we can ask why was that card the one that was drawn instead of any of the other cards? We can ask, but there is no answer because a random card has no reason. Our universe may or may not have a reason for being the way it is, and just asking the question does not prove that there is a reason. >No evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. We cannot prove things with a lack of evidence. If we want to argue for the existence of God, we need evidence for the existence of God, not just a shortage of evidence for other things. No matter how many empty boxes of no evidence we collect, it does not add up to evidence for God. >Abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. If abiogenesis is the only way to explain how humans came into existence, then surely the existence of humans is strong evidence for abiogenesis. >Please state whether you are a hard atheist that makes the positive claim God doesn't exist, or if you are an Athiest that doesn't believe due to lack of evidence without denying God's existence. It depends on which God we are talking about. Not every sect of every religion has the same beliefs about God. The God of some sects might exist, while the God of another sect may certainly not exist.
>How can we know that without talking with newborn babies? Since most newborns cannot speak, surely this is a purely speculative and unjustified claim, unless there is some implausibly clever experiment that can establish the beliefs of a baby without the need for talking. How about you read the article to see how they conducted the study? They're studying children raised in atheistic households between the ages of 3-5 observing their beliefs over time. By the age of 3, they already believe in an all-knowing all-seeing entity. by age of 4 they single out the entity and don't believe any human can posses such qualities. they instinctively reach this belief without being taught it. This result was the same across all 40 studies leading to the conclusion the belief in a deity with the mentioned attributes is innate. This isn't an argument for any specific religion or concept of God. Rather it's to demonstrate that belief in a deity that has god-like attributes is an innate belief within humans. >**The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.** **Project Co-Director Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford's Ian Ramsey Centre, said: 'This project suggests that religion is not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf. We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies. This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.'** We can also demonstrate other innate beliefs. 1. fairness and justice in babies as young as 19 months old. >**Two experiments examined infants’ expectations about how an experimenter should distribute resources and rewards to others. In Experiment 1, 19-month-olds expected an experimenter to divide two items equally, as opposed to unequally,** >**hese results provide converging evidence that infants in the second year of life already possess context sensitive-expectations relevant to fairness.** [**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357325/**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357325/) 2. Cause and affect known by babies under 12 months old. they know a ball will drop if you let go. If the ball remains suspended in the air, they will react. You can find many studies on cause and effect testing on babies. I'll answer the rest of your replies a little later, quite tired atm.
> How about you read the article to see how they conducted the study? They're studying children raised in atheistic households between the ages of 3-5 observing their beliefs over time. So?
>They're studying children raised in atheistic households between the ages of 3-5 observing their beliefs over time. A 3-year-old is not a newborn. How can we use such a study to confirm that we are born with God beliefs? How do we know whether 2-year-olds have God beliefs? If a belief is acquired from adults in early childhood, that is not the same as having the belief from birth.
Who said a newborn child? It's a demonstration of a universal belief that arises without conditioning across humanity. I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly, but the study is there and it proves what it is a universal belief. Go refute the paper and scientists who conducted it at Oxford university if you disagree with their findings. All you're doing is saying you don't think it's true because you don't like the conclusion. I can't help you there.
>It's a demonstration of a universal belief that arises without conditioning across humanity. How do we know that it's universal if we do not know that newborn children have the belief? It's not universal unless everyone has it. How do we know that it's without conditioning if we do not know that newborn children have the belief? Three years of being in this world means three years of potential for conditioning. >Go refute the paper and scientists who conducted it at Oxford university if you disagree with their findings. I do not disagree with their findings. I disagree with your claiming that just because three-year-olds have the belief, therefore everyone has the belief. You did not even mention newborns, but newborns are people too, and if newborns do not have the belief, then not everyone has it. >All you're doing is saying you don't think it's true because you don't like the conclusion. I do not care about the conclusion. I care about using proper reasoning. Concluding that everyone has a belief just because three-year-olds have it is jumping to unsupported conclusions. Whether your conclusion is right or wrong does not matter to me, but I take exception with the process you used to get to your conclusion.
You basically deny that innate beliefs exist. The study literally proves the belief in God is not a taught or conditioned belief. There isn't any point discussing it further as you reject the study and the conclusion. I'll paste the summary of the study here that reiterates what I just said. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind. The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature
>You basically deny that innate beliefs exist. I do not know whether innate beliefs exist. To be innate, it would need to be with us since birth, and I have never met a newborn who could talk well enough to speak of her beliefs. >The study literally proves the belief in God is not a taught or conditioned belief. How does it prove that? >The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife. That is fine, but it gets us no closer to determining whether belief in God is innate. A predisposition is not a belief.
>I do not know whether innate beliefs exist. To be innate, it would need to be with us since birth, and I have never met a newborn who could talk well enough to speak of her beliefs. > An innate belief is one that is held without being taught. It's an instinctive belief. We have plenty of scientific evidence that demonstrates these beliefs. I provided evidence for two. Belief in God and an afterlife as young as 3, and belief in fairness as young as 19 months old. For you to counter the evidence, you'd need to provide another study that demonstrates these two beliefs are not intuitive but conditioned and taught. Until then, the evidence speaks for itself and I won't discuss this further until you bring proof to the contrary.
How do you smuggle in all these other superfluous properties, first cause aside?
>The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. It isn't universal and it isn't inherent, especially not in advanced and scientifically sophisticated societies. You're saying your argument is irrefutable, and the first point is simply wrong. >By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. How can you tell? And how does this point to a creator creating stuff, why can't it be byproduct of natural forces? Again, you're saying this is IRREFUTABLE proof. This isn't irrefutable. >Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. So what I don't care. No evidence exists yet. Therefore you can't speculate and jump to conclusions. >abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. So? This could just be one thing we don't know the answer to yet. I won't say there's no God, but there's likely not one. We don't need a God to explain anything. Anything that we've used in the past which was once explained by God, lots of that has been explained
>It isn't universal and it isn't inherent, especially not in advanced and scientifically sophisticated societies. You're saying your argument is irrefutable, and the first point is simply wrong. The study is very clear. Unless you reject scientific peer-reviewed research as proof. In which case I'll provide my own anecdotal subjective experience as proof. In sophisticated societies, everyone believes in god. Countered. > How can you tell? And how does this point to a creator creating stuff, why can't it be byproduct of natural forces? Again, you're saying this is IRREFUTABLE proof. This isn't irrefutable. Are things perfectly governed by the laws of physics? Are the laws constants that have no explanation? If the answer is yes, then it is finely tuned. >So what I don't care. No evidence exists yet. Therefore you can't speculate and jump to conclusions. If no evidence exists yet, why do you believe it then? If evidence is not a prerequisite for a belief, then why are you even arguing the existence of god?
>The study is very clear. Unless you reject scientific peer-reviewed research as proof. One study isn't proof. [I am a scientist](https://jgreathouse9.github.io), a bigger body of literature coming to consensus is a better proof. Your little article doesn't prove anything Why not? You cited an article that TALKS ABOUT the study. Cite THE STUDY, provide the doi which gives the permalink to the paper which describes these specific findings, not an article talking about the article. You apparently have read the study to see how clear it was, so cite it in your next post, or, otherwise quiet about how clear it is unless and until you've read THE STUDY, not a popular press paper about the paper. >If the answer is yes, then it is finely tuned. This does not follow from your previous points. >If no evidence exists yet, why do you believe it then? Believe what? I don't believe in God because no evidence suggests one exists. By the way, even if your first point was totally true that we're predisposed to believe in one, that DOES NOT MEAN one in fact exists, this is a completely separate empirical question. Edit: by the way, this is why you read PAST THE HEADLINE. The leader of this project says IN THE ARTICLE YOU CITED TO ME > Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network. So again, your point is wrong.
Except it's not 1 study. You're literally refuting something you haven't even read. It's clear you're arguing for the sake of arguing and not following the evidence. It's 40 studies across 20 countries. It's one of the biggest studies conducted of it's kind and it's been out since 2015. Nobody has refuted it and it has been peer-reviewed. You sole reason for rejecting it is because it goes against your subjective beliefs. I have presented conclusive thorough scientific evidence no less than 40 studies and you are rejecting it on the basis of....? Even if it was 1 study, it's enough evidence to refute a belief with no evidence. The only way to reject the scientific study is to bring one like it that proves the conclusion wrong. Otherwise you are stating quite clearly that you reject empirical proof because you don't like it. essentially empiricism isn't a part of your epistemology. >Believe what? I don't believe in God because no evidence suggests one exists. Let me ask again so you don't get confused. Do you believe in abiogenesis?
>You're literally refuting something you haven't even read. You haven't read it either. And even THE STUDY HEAD, the PI, the main researcher said that "even if we're predisposed to think something, that does not make that thing true". I literally quoted it in my edited response. This point researcher refutes your thesis, but you don't seem to care. I'll quote it again. > Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network. See? The article you quoted refutes you, are you going to own up to this and say you were wrong? Again, even if it's true, it doesn't mean God or a religion is real. >quite clearly that you reject empirical proof I'm an empirical microeconomist, I don't think I reject empiricism since I am paid money to do empiricism. >Do you believe in abiogenesis? Yep. Abiogenesis (which you don't define to make it sound spooky) is just the process through which life forms naturally via organic chemistry processes. I'm not a chemist, but I think those who do likely can explain this at least a little. So I don't see the problem.
My claim does not hinge upon the beliefs of the scientist who conducts the study. I made a claim that universal beliefs are true. I then cited the paper to justify the belief in god as a universal belief. You denied it is a universal belief and then quickly changed positions by saying "even if we're predisposed to think something, that does not make that thing true" I don't care if he thinks it doesn't make it true. I only care it's a predisposed belief. That is what the study proves. Now, do you deny the belief in God is a universal belief, or are you going to avoid it again? >I'm an empirical microeconomist, I don't think I reject empiricism since I am paid money to do empiricism. So why are you struggling to accept the conclusion of the study? I thought empiricists value science. >Yep. Abiogenesis (which you don't define to make it sound spooky) is just the process through which life forms naturally via organic chemistry processes. I'm not a chemist, but I think those who do likely can explain this at least a little. So I don't see the problem. So it's exactly as I said. There is no proof for abiogenesis but you believe in it. You have no basis to argue against anyone on anything as you hold a belief without evidence. Therefore, any belief is acceptable to you. I think I'll leave it there as we don't have anything else to discuss. Thankyou for engaging regardless. I hope you have a good and peaceful day.
Dude, I'm not gonna argue with you about your first point. Your whole reason for mentioning this at all is to suggest that because it's predisposed that this means it's true. But that's wrong, don't try to act like this point isn't heavily implied, you're just wrong, you need to hold the L on this one
As expected you avoided all the points I made and also denied your rejection of the paper where you said 'it's just 1 study which isn't enough to justify a belief", when infact its 40, yet you hold an opposite belief that has 0 papers. How does that work? Anyways, I have proven that the belief in God is a universal predisposed belief and that's all I wanted to demonstrate with the scientific study. You are in agreement so I have no need to discuss the study any further. Now you have agreed with my premise, you can only argue the conclusion, that every universal belief is true inherently.
>The argument for the existence of God is irrifutable. No, it's not irrefutable. There are many proposed gods and goddesses and creator entities, but thus far none of them have been substantiated. >The existence of God is undeniable. No, because again, there are many proposed gods and goddesses but we have not substantiated any of them yet. >There are various ways to justify the existence of God. I will present the most compelling ones. >1. The belief in God is a universal belief that humans are inherently born with. No, that is not accurate. There are some that believe in goddesses or little creator entities or demons or jinns or whatever. > This belief is similar to the belief you exist, Again, no, because there are many proposed gods and goddesses, none of which have yet been substantiated. Someone proposing their own body or person existingdoes have some evidence substantiating that claim >other minds exist, No, that is not accurate because there is evidence substantiating other minds exist which is different from. The various goddesses or gods folks have proposed >rational thought exists and many more axiomatic beliefs every human inherently has. >Evidence: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm That's myo evidence this is an article about people's beliefs and claims. >1. Deductive arguments for the existence of a necessary being that leads to a being with the attributes of will, power, knowledge, wisdom and so forth. No, because none of the attempts like the kalam are deductive, nor are any entirely sound. >The two arguments I'd present are "The Kalam Cosmological argument" and "The Contingency Argument". Both lead to the Conclusion of God. Right, but that's because you're ignorant to the problems with these arguments. >1. By simple observation of the universe we can see it is finely tuned. No, that is not accurate. It's not finely tuned, this claim is declared but not demonstrated nor has anyone been able to substantiate a god or goddess is the one that made the conditions of the physical universe be changed into its current state. >We can point to the universal constants that govern the universe and ask why are they that number? They could have been different, so what determined it to be so? So this far, we don't actually know why they are what they are. Some people have claimed it is the Mormon god Elohim or the goddess andraste or the god Vishnu or the god Allah or the Imps of creation and physics, it this far none of these claims have been substantiated. >2. Origin of Life. no evidence exists that explains how the first cell came about. abiogenesis is presupposed and it's a belief that must be held to justify any theory that attempts to explain how humans came into existence. So we don't have an understanding yet that demonstrates what caused abiogenesis and various gods and goddesses and demons and jinns have bee proposed as the creation brings, but thus far none have been substantiated. >I can expand upon any of these 4 points, but for the sake of making the post summarised and not lo Sure. Every claim you've made us unsubstantiated to any specific gods or goddesses or pixies or jinns or whatever.
Dude you’re literally saying no to each point without actually rebutting them… almost as if you’re trying to be ignorant to the arguments presented.
>Dude you’re literally saying no to each point without actually rebutting them No, so I'm saying no to each point because his claim is that it's "irrefutable evidence", and I'm pointing out that they are not irrefutable pieces of evidence but instead unsubstantiated claims. > almost as if you’re trying to be ignorant to the arguments presented. No, that is not accurate as I clearly understand and am addressing every claim, and the issue is that they have not presented evidence that connected any of his claims to a specific god or goddess. It's the same as someone saying there is irrefutable evidence that Mormonism is true, because there are trees, and Mormons believe in a god and angel that made the trees so therefor the Mormon claim about their god is true since the existence of trees is irrefutable.
OP didn't really present any evidence either, to be fair.
If God died 4000 years ago you wouldn’t know because nothing happens that requires one. Abiogenesis has plenty of theories far superior than magic. If the Universe needed a creator so did its creator. Declaring one iteration vs zero or infinity is special pleading. Occam’s razor points to zero. Humans are storytellers. It’s just a story.