Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 16:43:32 GMT
I'm not sure what by looking at the universe around me and from what I see that at the point of this Universe's creation there was something guiding the great something out of nothing that happened. It isn't necessarily the case that something came from nothing because you have two logical possibilities: either something from nothing or something has always been. And that opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 17, 2019 16:53:10 GMT
It isn't necessarily the case that something came from nothing because you have two logical possibilities: either something from nothing or something has always been. And that opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms. Not for me personally because this particular matter I remain agnostic and it doesn't inform my atheism. My atheism is more informed by considering deity to be incoherent in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 17, 2019 17:04:57 GMT
I don`t belive in God because there are not one single proof that God exist.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 17:15:41 GMT
If it's not testable then your assertion "There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is unfalsifiable. The fact that the obverse assertion "there is a genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is also unfalsifiable doesn't change that. The correct stance is we don't know. The onus would then be on the person making the claim this it IS possible. No the onus is on you to provide evidence to back your claim, something you are incapable of doing.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 17:16:50 GMT
[/div]
And feel free to believe that the opinions of a middle aged woman in Australia are more informed than published academia.
[/quote] Please supply as previously request, the definition of religiousness as used by this 'published academia' to which you have not linked. At least I know how science works. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples Repetition Critical analysis Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment What is their hypothesis? What objective observations? What critical analysis? What verification and testing? [/quote][/div]
I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 18:06:38 GMT
And that opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms. Not for me personally because this particular matter I remain agnostic and it doesn't inform my atheism. My atheism is more informed by considering deity to be incoherent in itself. Out of interest, is your atheism along the lines of "God is an incoherent concept so he cannot exist" or "God is an incoherent concept so the question of his existence cannot even be considered in a meaningful sense"?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 17, 2019 19:03:02 GMT
Not for me personally because this particular matter I remain agnostic and it doesn't inform my atheism. My atheism is more informed by considering deity to be incoherent in itself. Out of interest, is your atheism along the lines of "God is an incoherent concept so he cannot exist" or "God is an incoherent concept so the question of his existence cannot even be considered in a meaningful sense"? I would never dare to claim that the concept of God is incoherent after having studied physics and its history in the 20th century. Einstein must have often thought that Quantum Mechanics (or at least some interpretations of it) was nonsensical, and it seems he was quite wrong about that. For me it's simply a question of evidence. As soon as there is some clear evidence for God I'll start considering believing in Him or Her.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 17, 2019 19:28:49 GMT
It isn't necessarily the case that something came from nothing because you have two logical possibilities: either something from nothing or something has always been. And that opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms. Not really, the bottom line is whether that something permanent which is the necessary Cause of all things is supernatural or natural, and whether it is deliberate or random. To which can be added two observations: that we do not, and may not be able, to know everything about that which is natural, and that nothing we have discovered so far is proved deliberate - unless we choose to give it a purpose.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 17, 2019 19:51:27 GMT
I'm talking about the nature and existence of the type of matter that allows for something physical to exist in the first place. If you are content that the "nature" of atomic structure makes it such that the elements exist, each with unique characteristics, that happen to work together in multitudes of ways like tinkertoys because that's the way the universe works, then good for you. Go with it, stand on it as fact. But this is no more of a claim than the idea that it is a 'brute fact' that it is God's 'nature' to be the Creator, surely? Science does not say that everything came from 'nothing' since, for one thing. nothing cannot 'exist'; instead the idea is that there is always something, even if just a quantum vacuum. One idea is that it is the absence of anything more, together with a supposed slight imbalance in the way things are and with timeless (infinite) provocation, (given that all of everything can be seen as an isolated system then, if true, mass and energy always would always remain without loss despite being in different forms and states) means that if something can happen - like a stable universe - it will. The characteristic indeterminancy at the smallest levels of reality is a clue here, a strange 'design' if ever one is considered, but instead perhaps reflects the random nature of the way things began, and still continue to become as particles pop into existence. You are in good company here since in the theology of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea can be taken to mean that God's existence is absolutely simple, without combinations or additions of any kind. All perfections are found in Him in a perfectly simple manner. But this does not bode well for later embellishments, such as the Trinity or the idea of Jesus being a part God on earth. There is also the question over whether such simplicity allows for such additions as volition, compassion or forgiveness (for instance). It also implies that god cannot change and so lacks potential. But then there must have been a time when God had not yet created everything for which there must have been potential.. and so on.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 20:56:21 GMT
The onus would then be on the person making the claim this it IS possible. That doesn't make sense to me. If a hypothesis is untestable (at least with current science) then declaring it false is as equally wrongfooted as declaring it true. If you wanted to take the more cautious stance of "we shouldn't assume there is a genetic component to religious belief in any cases until evidence is presented to that effect" then I would have no issue with that. Your earlier assertion that religious belief is fully accounted for by indoctrination is also pretty dubious by your own standards. For a start I NEVER said that belief if fully accountable for my indoctrination. My entire premise is that 'religiousness' is unable to be quantified, there fore claims that it is, are untenable, at worst not able to be proven by scientific methods. Pretty much your second paragraph however with the additional assertion that since religiousness is a multipronged 'condition' made up of perhaps myriads of susceptibilities, to accept some 'study' by a graduate student in this field is nonsense, as it cannot be proven. ...and yet when it comes to religion and the existence of God this is just what happens. Amongst hard atheists there is the assertion that God doesn't and cannot exist. We also know that there is no proof that is possible. The cases are not identical haowever due to the differences in definitions of God and 'religiousness'. Being able to define God is hard enough however to define religiousness is even more difficult, if not impossble in terms of identifiable DNA areas.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 20:59:39 GMT
The onus would then be on the person making the claim this it IS possible. No the onus is on you to provide evidence to back your claim, something you are incapable of doing. No, you are the one with the dodgy positive claim. I cannot prove a negative especially when the positive claim is not yet defined. WTF is 'religiousness'?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:06:30 GMT
No the onus is on you to provide evidence to back your claim, something you are incapable of doing. No, you are the one with the dodgy positive claim. I cannot prove a negative especially when the positive claim is not yet defined. WTF is 'religiousness'? I have never made a claim, I refuted (successfully) your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', and you have provided absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim. so as I say: I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 17, 2019 21:10:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 21:15:19 GMT
No, you are the one with the dodgy positive claim. I cannot prove a negative especially when the positive claim is not yet defined. WTF is 'religiousness'? I have never made a claim, I refuted (successfully) your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', and you have provided absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim. so as I say: I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken. What is 'religious tendency'? How is it matched with DNA? You made a claim that there is, based on one dodgy study.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:18:07 GMT
I have never made a claim, I refuted (successfully) your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', and you have provided absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim. so as I say: I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken. What is 'religious tendency'? How is it matched with of DNA? I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 21:19:46 GMT
What is 'religious tendency'? How is it matched with of DNA? I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken. No, you haven't, and I am not. Answer my questions. You can't butt have a go.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:20:49 GMT
I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken. No, you haven't, and I am not. Answer my questions. You can't butt have a go. I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 21:33:59 GMT
No, you haven't, and I am not. Answer my questions. You can't butt have a go.[b I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken. You can say that as many times as you like however it is an untrue statement. What is the definition of 'religious tendency' and what genes are involved? You have provided no evidence in that regard and in fact only one vague dodgy study by a graduate student psychologist without qualification in the scientific study of genetics. The study of genetics and DNA is a scientific one. To link genes with some trait, the trait would need to be identified and refined to a testable entity according to standard scientific method... in order to link it with some gene or genes. Please show studies or evidence of this. Notions are not scientific evidence of anything.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 21:36:46 GMT
I am comfortable that I have overwhelmingly shown that there is good support for the notion that religious tendency is genetically influenced, until you can cite anything that supports your stance that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', I think we are going to have to accept you were mistaken. You can say that as many times as you like however it is an untrue statement. What is the definition of 'religious tendency' and what genes are involved? You have provided no evidence in that regard and in fact only one vague dodgy study by a graduate student psychologist without qualification in the scientific study of genetics. The study of genetics and DNA is a scientific one. To link genes with some trait, the trait would need to be identified and refined to a testable entity according to standard scientific method... in order to link it with some gene or genes. Please show studies or evidence of this. Notions are not scientific evidence of anything. Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 21:42:04 GMT
You can say that as many times as you like however it is an untrue statement. What is the definition of 'religious tendency' and what genes are involved? You have provided no evidence in that regard and in fact only one vague dodgy study by a graduate student psychologist without qualification in the scientific study of genetics. The study of genetics and DNA is a scientific one. To link genes with some trait, the trait would need to be identified and refined to a testable entity according to standard scientific method... in order to link it with some gene or genes. Please show studies or evidence of this. Notions are not scientific evidence of anything. Maybe look at the other evidence I provided and see what you think of that. Also I am pointing out that your claim that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith' is not evidenced by the information I have provided, which was my goal. until you are able to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claim holds water, I will remain comfortable that I have demonstrated that there is plenty of academic support for your claim being not accepted. Answer my questions and provide evidence of your answers and then you might be able to feel comfortable since that is a nice 'notion', however unscientific...like you. My claim is based on absence of evidence from you which I am still waiting for. What traits, what genes? presuming that has something to do with religious tendency, which is not even stated by you as yet!
|
|