Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:Talk about misleading, KBCid. That's not just an ancestral gene being expressed, that is a mutation of a gene being expressed. In no way is that some kind of long-lost feature of any primate. It's a deformity caused by a mutation...The article you posted was just a case study of an isolated time that this happened. However, there have been cases where the genes responsible for creating a tail in humans have been expressed; in these cases the extra tail is typically non-functional, because only a few of the genes needed to form a functional tail are being expressed (i.e. it is very unlikely that even one gene for a tail will be expressed in humans, and progressively less likely that two or more of them are expressed).

Can you please define how, using the scientific method, one can differentiate between a deformity caused by mutation (I would presume here you mean by deformity is a loss of function) and, for lack of a better term, non-deformity caused by mutation, i.e. a gain of function. I guess first you would have to define and show examples of beneficial mutations.

Well, that's fairly easy...I mean, any mutation that aids in survival would certainly be beneficial. If it increases your chances of reproducing, it has a chance of being passed on to the next generation. In this case there is no loss of function, but no gain of function either...It's a chunk of skin and possibly bone sticking out of your neck. A deformity in this case is a physical mutation, nothing more, nothing less.

What does this have to do with the point at hand, though? I pointed out that humans have the genetic information to form a fully functional tail, much like all other primates. He said that this tail-sticking-out-of-your-neck is somehow exactly the same as what I said. I called BS, because it's simply not.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of a belief in any god. The new religion you might be thinking of is scientific naturalism, but it's more of an idealistic philosophy more than a religion, since there is no deities or rituals involved.

Atheism is a belief, it is a belief there is no God(s).

If you say it is a lack of belief you are just playing semantics, I could just as easily say I have a lack of belief in the non existence of the Christian God.

All this is, is word games and nothing more.

Every world view is a belief.

Dan

Except when it's a lack of a belief.

Once again word games.


I can play them too... I have a lack of belief that the Christian God does not exist.

Double negative, you just said: I have a belief that the Christian God does exist.

My statement, you will notice, is simply one negative: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

The only one playing word games is you.

Ivellious wrote:I mean, any mutation that aids in survival would certainly be beneficial.

So whether something is labeled a deformity or a non-deformity depends on the environment. It is not an absolute definition.

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of a belief in any god. The new religion you might be thinking of is scientific naturalism, but it's more of an idealistic philosophy more than a religion, since there is no deities or rituals involved.

Atheism is a belief, it is a belief there is no God(s).

If you say it is a lack of belief you are just playing semantics, I could just as easily say I have a lack of belief in the non existence of the Christian God.

All this is, is word games and nothing more.

Every world view is a belief.

Dan

Except when it's a lack of a belief.

Once again word games.


I can play them too... I have a lack of belief that the Christian God does not exist.

Double negative, you just said: I have a belief that the Christian God does exist.

My statement, you will notice, is simply one negative: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

The only one playing word games is you.

So tell me this then Beany, do you believe that the Christian God exists, yes or no.

Whatever your answer is, is your belief, since your an atheist that would be your belief as an atheist hence giving your atheism a belief.

Atheism may not have specific beliefs but rather it is a world view made up of the individual beliefs.

Dan

Byblos wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Talk about misleading, KBCid. That's not just an ancestral gene being expressed, that is a mutation of a gene being expressed. In no way is that some kind of long-lost feature of any primate. It's a deformity caused by a mutation...The article you posted was just a case study of an isolated time that this happened. However, there have been cases where the genes responsible for creating a tail in humans have been expressed; in these cases the extra tail is typically non-functional, because only a few of the genes needed to form a functional tail are being expressed (i.e. it is very unlikely that even one gene for a tail will be expressed in humans, and progressively less likely that two or more of them are expressed).

Can you please define how, using the scientific method, one can differentiate between a deformity caused by mutation (I would presume here you mean by deformity is a loss of function) and, for lack of a better term, non-deformity caused by mutation, i.e. a gain of function. I guess first you would have to define and show examples of beneficial mutations.

I'm admittedly not a very sciency guy, but I can't really see what this question has to do with Ivellious' reply to KBCid. All he seems to be saying is that it is misleading to use the article he did to claim that evolutionists claim the existence of neck tails in human ancestors because it isn't an ancestral gene being expressed. I fail to see him mentioning mutations with a gain of function in the post, so what, exactly, is the significance here?

Edit: I've been ninja'd. Ivellious finished posting before I did.

"Deformity" isn't a scientific term. I used it because in this case, it deformed a part of the human body. I suppose one could argue that there can be positive deformities too, in the sense that, say, abnormal body shapes or the like could provide certain benefits. I don't want to label a deformity as an explicitly negative thing, despite its typical connotation. Much like generally a "mutation" might sound negative, it's not always the case in genetics.

mickaneso wrote: it just seems to me that the more intelligent a creature is the better equiped it is to survive.

No, no, no. That does not necessarily follow. Humans (at least most) are more intelligent than cockroaches, but there are many scenarios which roaches or bugs are better equipped to handle than we are.

As for the double negative, it has to be there because the Christian God exists.

It like you telling me you are asolar, you have a lack of belief in the sun.

I know the sun exists just in the same way God exists, so having a lack of belief in something exists is a belief.

I guess it is all about perspective.

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of a belief in any god. The new religion you might be thinking of is scientific naturalism, but it's more of an idealistic philosophy more than a religion, since there is no deities or rituals involved.

Atheism is a belief, it is a belief there is no God(s).

If you say it is a lack of belief you are just playing semantics, I could just as easily say I have a lack of belief in the non existence of the Christian God.

All this is, is word games and nothing more.

Every world view is a belief.

Dan

Except when it's a lack of a belief.

Once again word games.


I can play them too... I have a lack of belief that the Christian God does not exist.

Double negative, you just said: I have a belief that the Christian God does exist.

My statement, you will notice, is simply one negative: Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

The only one playing word games is you.

In case ya didn't noticed, it was a deliberate double-negative. He was saying that he can play word games and rewrite his beliefs as in being the lack of belief in something.

In short, by playing with the flexibility of language, that's exactly what he's saying in different words.

In short, you are completely missing the point.

He was stating that denying Atheism as a religion on the basis of a lack of belief was merely a form of wordplay. That was his point.

Enough wordgames. Get serious. Your "Lack of belief in gods" can be interpreted to mean that you "believe there are no gods."

Of course, agnosticism would mean that "you are unsure of whether or not there are gods." Hence, "lack of belief in gods" carrying a different context.

Thank you Flawed, at least someone is getting what I am saying lol.


Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
So tell me this then Beany, do you believe that the Christian God exists, yes or no.

Whatever your answer is is your belief, since your an atheist that would be your belief as an atheist hence giving your atheism a belief.

Atheism may not have specific beliefs but rather it is a world view made up of the individuals beliefs.

Dan

Do I hold the belief that the Christian God exists? No. Now ask me if I hold the belief that the Christian God does NOT exist. The answer is also no. Do I know if the Christian god exists or doesn't exist, or can I? I'd say no. Does the Christian god exist? I don't know.

As you can see, my atheism is not a belief at all. Try as you might, you don't know my beliefs better than I do. You're playing word games with the fact that languages have trouble expressing lack of something or non-concepts. My atheism is an answer to the question: Do you believe in any god? No, I do not.

So, in short, you are all missing MY point and are incorrect.

Your "Lack of belief in gods" can be interpreted to mean that you "believe there are no gods."

Not without putting words into my mouth.

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
So tell me this then Beany, do you believe that the Christian God exists, yes or no.

Whatever your answer is is your belief, since your an atheist that would be your belief as an atheist hence giving your atheism a belief.

Atheism may not have specific beliefs but rather it is a world view made up of the individuals beliefs.

Dan

Do I hold the belief that the Christian God exists? No. Now ask me if I hold the belief that the Christian God does NOT exist. The answer is also no. Do I know if the Christian god exists or doesn't exist, or can I? I'd say no. Does the Christian god exist? I don't know.

As you can see, my atheism is not a belief at all. Try as you might, you don't know my beliefs better than I do. You're playing word games with the fact that languages have trouble expressing lack of something or non-concepts. My atheism is an answer to the question: Do you believe in any god? No, I do not.

So, in short, you are all missing MY point and are incorrect.

Your "Lack of belief in gods" can be interpreted to mean that you "believe there are no gods."

Not without putting words into my mouth.

I see the distinction you are drawing, Beany, but, and I apologize for asking again, in what way is agnostic atheism different from simple agnosticism?

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
So tell me this then Beany, do you believe that the Christian God exists, yes or no.

Whatever your answer is is your belief, since your an atheist that would be your belief as an atheist hence giving your atheism a belief.

Atheism may not have specific beliefs but rather it is a world view made up of the individuals beliefs.

Dan

Do I hold the belief that the Christian God exists? No. Now ask me if I hold the belief that the Christian God does NOT exist. The answer is also no. Do I know if the Christian god exists or doesn't exist, or can I? I'd say no. Does the Christian god exist? I don't know.

As you can see, my atheism is not a belief at all. Try as you might, you don't know my beliefs better than I do. You're playing word games with the fact that languages have trouble expressing lack of something or non-concepts. My atheism is an answer to the question: Do you believe in any god? No, I do not.

So, in short, you are all missing MY point and are incorrect.

Your "Lack of belief in gods" can be interpreted to mean that you "believe there are no gods."

Not without putting words into my mouth.

And the word games continue, whatever you say is still a belief no matter what and those beliefs make up your world view.

I am not trying to to say I know your beliefs, I am saying you have beliefs, which is your world view, which you can call whatever you want, but it makes you no different from the next person.

Dan

Beanybag wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
So tell me this then Beany, do you believe that the Christian God exists, yes or no.

Whatever your answer is is your belief, since your an atheist that would be your belief as an atheist hence giving your atheism a belief.

Atheism may not have specific beliefs but rather it is a world view made up of the individuals beliefs.

Dan

Do I hold the belief that the Christian God exists? No. Now ask me if I hold the belief that the Christian God does NOT exist. The answer is also no. Do I know if the Christian god exists or doesn't exist, or can I? I'd say no. Does the Christian god exist? I don't know.

As you can see, my atheism is not a belief at all. Try as you might, you don't know my beliefs better than I do. You're playing word games with the fact that languages have trouble expressing lack of something or non-concepts. My atheism is an answer to the question: Do you believe in any god? No, I do not.

So, in short, you are all missing MY point and are incorrect.

Your "Lack of belief in gods" can be interpreted to mean that you "believe there are no gods."

Not without putting words into my mouth.

I was arguing about possible context.

You are trying to say that "I don't know" isn't a belief.

The only way I can really think of to describe your position is confusion. You don't believe in something, but you aren't sure about the lack of something either. This is confusion. Are you basically saying that you don't know what to believe and nothing will compel you? Then apparently you've chosen to take a stance of permanent confusion. Of course, it is up for debate as to whether or not uncertainty = confusion.