Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Abiogenesis split from Death thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abiogenesis split from Death thread

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    We agree on what hypotheses are - you fail to grasp the meaning (in the relevant sub-definition) of faith. It is a subjective assurance of the truth: whether grounded in empirical truth, pure speculation, or something between the extremes is irrelevant.
    Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
    When you assert that a hypothesis is an established truth, you are relying on logical extrapolations and interpretations for making the claim.
    What you fail to grasp is that the word “faith”, which you seem determined to apply in a scientific hypotheses, is a misuse of the word. “Faith” according to the Oxford Dictionary is: “1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de.../english/faith

    This is not what a hypothesis is in a scientific context, namely: “Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic…”

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...cienceworks_19

    Your motivation appears to be your determination to hand-wave away natural Abiogenesis by labeling it a mere article of faith rather than a viable scientific hypothesis…after all this is trespassing on God’s territory and this won’t do at all for a Christian, will it?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic…”

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...cienceworks_19
    Originally posted by tabibito
    Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
    Would you care to explain how the two statements are materially different?

    Your motivation appears to be your determination to hand-wave away natural Abiogenesis by labeling it a mere article of faith rather than a viable scientific hypothesis…after all this is trespassing on God’s territory and this won’t do at all for a Christian, will it?
    Filtered through the eyes of a bigot who can't see past a label. Of course it would seem that way.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Would you care to explain how the two statements are materially different?
      They’re not. But you’ve omitted the bit where you were trying to align “hypothesis” with “faith” in some situations, e.g. re natural Abiogenesis, this is what I’m objecting to.

      Filtered through the eyes of a bigot who can't see past a label. Of course it would seem that way.
      The label of “faith” being applied to scientific hypotheses is inappropriate, why use it at all?
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #4
        I didn't assign the "faith" label to the hypothesis - I assigned it to the before-the-fact action of calling a hypothesis a theory.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          I didn't assign the "faith" label to the hypothesis - I assigned it to the before-the-fact action of calling a hypothesis a theory.
          why use it at all in this context?
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • #6
            "You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood become a matter of life and death to you." -- C.S. Lewis

            Matters of physical life and death should never be the determining factors of 'truth nor falsehood.'
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
            39 responses
            189 views
            0 likes
            Last Post whag
            by whag
             
            Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
            21 responses
            132 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
            Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
            80 responses
            428 views
            0 likes
            Last Post tabibito  
            Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
            45 responses
            305 views
            1 like
            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
            Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
            406 responses
            2,518 views
            2 likes
            Last Post tabibito  
            Working...
            X