Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Doesn't This Completely End The God Debate?

BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If we want to debate whether or not god exists, then we need to say what god is first. Just for sake of argument I'll use the definition that most people seem to agree with:

All-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who exists beyond space and time.

This is one of the tools from Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle " an electron, say " in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

That's a pretty succinct way of saying it so I'll let the quote speak for itself. Does anyone who believes in god disagree with either the definition of god I've given, or the notion that untestable hypotheses aren't worth consideration? If not, then that pretty much ends the god debate, from a scientific point of view at least.

If spiritually, people like to believe in god, then of course they have the religious freedom to do so. But scientifically, they have no justification. Unless they want to provide a claim that can be tested, for example a claim that god intervenes in day to day life in some way. If there are no such falsifiable claims however, it seems like the god debate is over, to me at least, since I'm a skeptic rational.
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:39:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
If we want to debate whether or not god exists, then we need to say what god is first. Just for sake of argument I'll use the definition that most people seem to agree with:

All-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who exists beyond space and time.

This is one of the tools from Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle " an electron, say " in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

That's a pretty succinct way of saying it so I'll let the quote speak for itself. Does anyone who believes in god disagree with either the definition of god I've given, or the notion that untestable hypotheses aren't worth consideration? If not, then that pretty much ends the god debate, from a scientific point of view at least.

If spiritually, people like to believe in god, then of course they have the religious freedom to do so. But scientifically, they have no justification. Unless they want to provide a claim that can be tested, for example a claim that god intervenes in day to day life in some way. If there are no such falsifiable claims however, it seems like the god debate is over, to me at least, since I'm a skeptic rational.

Yes, it would certainly be helpful and confidence-inspiring if Christians/Theists actually knew what their God was, then they would actually know of what they were talking about.

However, the more important question is whether any claimed God can actually DO anything of an objective nature in the world today, thus my thread 'Can YOU show me a (God-created) miracle'.

In fairness to theists, if they can show objectively that their God actually DOES things, actually influences events on present-day earth in some measurable way that could not have occurred by chance alone, then the theists could be forgiven for not knowing exactly what their God is. If someone shines a torch in your eye from a large distance, then you don't need to be able to prove that it was caused by a torch, and know all the details of exactly where the torch is or how it works, in order to know that something very real is hitting you in the eyes.

See, I'm not atheistically biased at all. What a great analogy supporting theism, if I say so myself. :)

Given that no one has ever been able to detect God himself (apparently it's not as easy as looking out for a bearded man in the sky), the only way we have of knowing objectively if he exists is by observing if he produces objective, physical, measurable influence on earth, that is, if he actually does things in the present-day world. However, as per my thread 'Can YOU show me a miracle', there is fairly good agreement that he doesn't.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
If we want to debate whether or not god exists, then we need to say what god is first. Just for sake of argument I'll use the definition that most people seem to agree with:

All-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who exists beyond space and time.

This is one of the tools from Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle " an electron, say " in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

That's a pretty succinct way of saying it so I'll let the quote speak for itself. Does anyone who believes in god disagree with either the definition of god I've given, or the notion that untestable hypotheses aren't worth consideration? If not, then that pretty much ends the god debate, from a scientific point of view at least.

If spiritually, people like to believe in god, then of course they have the religious freedom to do so. But scientifically, they have no justification. Unless they want to provide a claim that can be tested, for example a claim that god intervenes in day to day life in some way. If there are no such falsifiable claims however, it seems like the god debate is over, to me at least, since I'm a skeptic rational.

I would say god exists in space and time as well.

Regulating God to something to a metaphysical zone we can not know of is a way by defining god to be unfalsifiable.

I would also address the god is spirit thing, and that some with materialistic views discount anything spiritual.

But what is spiritual. Can spirit be in 2 places at one time? Can spirit appear and disappear? can spirit pass through seemingly impassible objects?

Then why are these attributes being rolled up and called traits of material world in the fundamental quantum parts of this reality? Because Spirit is something natural, natural as being part of this reality.

Some of the people who laid the foundations of scientific thought and advancement in the major areas of study (I admit the distinction is Subjective) have been people who believed in an intervening god or at the least a god-like entity of nature like Spinoza.

God is a falsifiable entity. I have yet to see any evidence that discounts a god-like being. From my own investigation, which I know may shock people, but I am generally skeptical. I see a recurring history of human accounts of similar stories that point to some kind of phenomena.

I see the astronomical odds, in some cases I would say impossible odds, of events that have happened that require an intelligence of a lot of power. Could be a collective effort, but I would rather not multiply entities beyond what is required.

I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:53:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.

Is that proposition testable or falsifiable? No?

/thread
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 10:56:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
If we want to debate whether or not god exists, then we need to say what god is first. Just for sake of argument I'll use the definition that most people seem to agree with:

All-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who exists beyond space and time.

This is one of the tools from Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle " an electron, say " in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

That's a pretty succinct way of saying it so I'll let the quote speak for itself. Does anyone who believes in god disagree with either the definition of god I've given, or the notion that untestable hypotheses aren't worth consideration? If not, then that pretty much ends the god debate, from a scientific point of view at least.

If spiritually, people like to believe in god, then of course they have the religious freedom to do so. But scientifically, they have no justification. Unless they want to provide a claim that can be tested, for example a claim that god intervenes in day to day life in some way. If there are no such falsifiable claims however, it seems like the god debate is over, to me at least, since I'm a skeptic rational.

Response: The proof of God's existence is based on science, and deductive logic based on science.

Which is the problem with atheists and agnostics. For they themselves apply this type of thinking when discovering other truths, but abandon it when it's time to consider God's existence. Instead, they want to stick to just science.

For example, science provides evidence of the anatomy of a mouse, what it can and cannot do by nature, etc. They conclude this from testable and observable evidence.

Yet if I say to you that a mouse got loose into a room where there is nothing but a small whole in the wall, and the mouse is no where to be found, then where did the mouse go? Since no one saw where the mouse went, science will not give you an answer. Deductive logic will.

So when we choose not to consider all the evidence, then yes, the debate is over. But when we consider all evidence, the debate is also over, because the evidence proves that God exist.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:07:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.

What sort of stuff that convinces you but not others, are you referring to?
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:53:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.

Is that proposition testable or falsifiable? No?

/thread

I think you may have missed the whole idea of the quote. The idea is that if you can't test it, then forget about it. Like the claim that we are all just brains in jars, and all of our experiences are created as sort of a virtual reality for the brain in the jar, but aren't real. It's a solid claim but there's no way to test it, so why should we spend any time worrying about it? Why worry about that claim over another claim like "the entire universe is just an elementary particle in another universe". Why can't that other universe be ruled by pig men or have a gravity that is stronger than electromagnetism? There's no end to the ways we could come up with unfalsifiable hypothesis. So why worry about any of them?
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:15:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
Unless they want to provide a claim that can be tested, for example a claim that god intervenes in day to day life in some way.

I do apologize. You were already a step ahead of me, and I agree with the rest of your posting. You do need to stress though, that any claimed intervention is of an objective, measurable kind that could not have occurred by chance alone.

If not, then that pretty much ends the god debate, from a scientific point of view at least.
From a scientific perspective the debate ended a long time ago. Scientists today do not waste their time looking for a 'personal' God that can perform miracles and break the Laws of nature, and communicate with people etc. Nor do they waste their time trying to detect a 'soul' that exists independently as a physical entity separate from our body, or detect heaven, and so on. I know that people believe these thing, but as a simple matter of fact, science does not. Maybe science is wrong, but that's a different debate.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:18:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.

Ok, great you have a claim. What type of intelligent message should I be listening for?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:19:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:18:18 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.

Ok, great you have a claim. What type of intelligent message should I be listening for?

This will help:

http://www.debate.org...
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:22:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just to provide you with a heads up, God has used license plate numbers, the time on my computer, even the car accident I was in to communicate a message to me.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:19:49 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:18:18 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.

Ok, great you have a claim. What type of intelligent message should I be listening for?

This will help:

http://www.debate.org...

You said "I find that God communicates to me daily using palindromes", and you gave an example that your birthday was the reverse of the month and day of the september 11th terrorist attack. 2 numbers would not have been enough information to predict that event; had you have gone to the government before the attack, claiming "9/11 is my birthday backwards so something bad will happen on that day" what do you think they would say?

I might go further and ask, how would you have known what year that the attack would occur? Why not september 11th, 2002?

I won't be reading through the rest of your debate sorry.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:30:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:07:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.

What sort of stuff that convinces you but not others, are you referring to?

For one, I see no way abiogenesis could occur. I see clear chemical arrangements that are destructive to other processes and arrangements. All experiments that come close to reproducing biological elements from scratch are all delicate operations guided by the intelligent mind of a scientist and with substantial amounts of precursor chemicals harvested from existing biological sources or by processes destructive to other organic material (aka Prebiotic feedstock).
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:32:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:27:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:19:49 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:18:18 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.

Ok, great you have a claim. What type of intelligent message should I be listening for?

This will help:

http://www.debate.org...

You said "I find that God communicates to me daily using palindromes", and you gave an example that your birthday was the reverse of the month and day of the september 11th terrorist attack. 2 numbers would not have been enough information to predict that event; had you have gone to the government before the attack, claiming "9/11 is my birthday backwards so something bad will happen on that day" what do you think they would say?

I might go further and ask, how would you have known what year that the attack would occur? Why not september 11th, 2002?

I won't be reading through the rest of your debate sorry.

Oh, God wasn't giving me this information to predict the September 11th attacks (I received these messages years after the attacks occurred). Instead, God was sharing this to tell me that my sin was like that of a terrorist, in that they led to the death of innocent people.

You see, our sins kill people--just like the sin of others killed Jesus thousands of years ago. That was the message God was sharing with me through those messages (God has used other coincidences to confirm that message).
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:38:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:32:37 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:27:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:19:49 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:18:18 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.

Ok, great you have a claim. What type of intelligent message should I be listening for?

This will help:

http://www.debate.org...

You said "I find that God communicates to me daily using palindromes", and you gave an example that your birthday was the reverse of the month and day of the september 11th terrorist attack. 2 numbers would not have been enough information to predict that event; had you have gone to the government before the attack, claiming "9/11 is my birthday backwards so something bad will happen on that day" what do you think they would say?

I might go further and ask, how would you have known what year that the attack would occur? Why not september 11th, 2002?

I won't be reading through the rest of your debate sorry.

Oh, God wasn't giving me this information to predict the September 11th attacks (I received these messages years after the attacks occurred). Instead, God was sharing this to tell me that my sin was like that of a terrorist, in that they led to the death of innocent people.

You see, our sins kill people--just like the sin of others killed Jesus thousands of years ago. That was the message God was sharing with me through those messages (God has used other coincidences to confirm that message).

Seems kind of arbitrary to swap the numbers 11 and 9 around in that order, doesn't it? Also isn't it arbitrary to pick the month and the day, not the the year and the month for example? How do you know god isn't referring you to other dates that have 9's and 11's in them for other sorts of hidden messages like that?
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:39:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:30:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:07:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.

What sort of stuff that convinces you but not others, are you referring to?

For one, I see no way abiogenesis could occur. I see clear chemical arrangements that are destructive to other processes and arrangements. All experiments that come close to reproducing biological elements from scratch are all delicate operations guided by the intelligent mind of a scientist and with substantial amounts of precursor chemicals harvested from existing biological sources or by processes destructive to other organic material (aka Prebiotic feedstock).

Wouldn't that just be god of the gaps fallacy?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:46:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:38:36 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:32:37 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:27:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:19:49 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:18:18 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.

Ok, great you have a claim. What type of intelligent message should I be listening for?

This will help:

http://www.debate.org...

You said "I find that God communicates to me daily using palindromes", and you gave an example that your birthday was the reverse of the month and day of the september 11th terrorist attack. 2 numbers would not have been enough information to predict that event; had you have gone to the government before the attack, claiming "9/11 is my birthday backwards so something bad will happen on that day" what do you think they would say?

I might go further and ask, how would you have known what year that the attack would occur? Why not september 11th, 2002?

I won't be reading through the rest of your debate sorry.

Oh, God wasn't giving me this information to predict the September 11th attacks (I received these messages years after the attacks occurred). Instead, God was sharing this to tell me that my sin was like that of a terrorist, in that they led to the death of innocent people.

You see, our sins kill people--just like the sin of others killed Jesus thousands of years ago. That was the message God was sharing with me through those messages (God has used other coincidences to confirm that message).

Seems kind of arbitrary to swap the numbers 11 and 9 around in that order, doesn't it? Also isn't it arbitrary to pick the month and the day, not the the year and the month for example? How do you know god isn't referring you to other dates that have 9's and 11's in them for other sorts of hidden messages like that?

BradK, excellent questions! But God used these set of coincidences on the May 1, 2011--the same day that the death of Osama Bin Laden was announced to the world--and the same that Pope John Paul II was beatified. My names is Juan Pablo, which is John Paul in Spanish. God used the numbers 9/11 and 11/9 as part of a greater set of coincidences on that day!

That's how I know God was referring to the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington D.C.

If you read my debate, you'll get a better understanding of what I'm saying.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:47:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 10:39:56 PM, civilbuthonest wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
If we want to debate whether or not god exists, then we need to say what god is first. Just for sake of argument I'll use the definition that most people seem to agree with:

All-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who exists beyond space and time.

This is one of the tools from Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle " an electron, say " in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

That's a pretty succinct way of saying it so I'll let the quote speak for itself. Does anyone who believes in god disagree with either the definition of god I've given, or the notion that untestable hypotheses aren't worth consideration? If not, then that pretty much ends the god debate, from a scientific point of view at least.

If spiritually, people like to believe in god, then of course they have the religious freedom to do so. But scientifically, they have no justification. Unless they want to provide a claim that can be tested, for example a claim that god intervenes in day to day life in some way. If there are no such falsifiable claims however, it seems like the god debate is over, to me at least, since I'm a skeptic rational.

Yes, it would certainly be helpful and confidence-inspiring if Christians/Theists actually knew what their God was, then they would actually know of what they were talking about.

However, the more important question is whether any claimed God can

will*

actually DO anything of an objective nature in the world today, thus my thread 'Can YOU show me a (God-created) miracle'.



Given that no one has ever been able to detect God himself (apparently it's not as easy as looking out for a bearded man in the sky),

Of course, Christians do not believe that, nor accept it as a "given".

the only way we have of knowing objectively if he exists is by observing if he produces objective, physical, measurable influence on earth, that is, if he actually does things in the present-day world. However, as per my thread 'Can YOU show me a miracle', there is fairly good agreement that he doesn't.

The entire Christian argument is that He (1) does not perform nor cause to be performed any sort of miraculous activity today, yet (2) did perform/cause to be performed many diverse such miracles in the past as the means, the modus operandi, of confirming His word.

However, one can "objectively know" whether He exists or not by examining certain prophesies within the Bible, if interested.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:54:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:14:08 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:53:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.

Is that proposition testable or falsifiable? No?

/thread

I think you may have missed the whole idea of the quote.

No, I got the idea exactly. It's a self-defeating statement. It smacks of logical positivism, which held to the thesis that any proposition that is not a) analytical or b) empirically testable is nonsense. The obvious reply was is that proposition itself analytical or empircally testable? It wasn't, so it was a self refuting statement. This is basically the same thing. The statement itself is self-defeating. The scientism tha runs rampant today in certain circles seems just a permutation of logical positivism.

I don't understand why so many self-professed skeptics aren't more skeptical of their epistemologies... :/

The idea is that if you can't test it, then forget about it.

Can you test the proposition "if you cant test it, forget about it"? You can't, so forget about it.

Like the claim that we are all just brains in jars, and all of our experiences are created as sort of a virtual reality for the brain in the jar, but aren't real. It's a solid claim but there's no way to test it, so why should we spend any time worrying about it? Why worry about that claim over another claim like "the entire universe is just an elementary particle in another universe". Why can't that other universe be ruled by pig men or have a gravity that is stronger than electromagnetism? There's no end to the ways we could come up with unfalsifiable hypothesis. So why worry about any of them?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:55:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:46:28 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:38:36 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:32:37 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:27:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:19:49 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:18:18 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:16:09 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My definition of God:

The super-intelligent, aware, self-arranging universe, capable of communicating intelligibly with humankind.

Ok, great you have a claim. What type of intelligent message should I be listening for?

This will help:

http://www.debate.org...

You said "I find that God communicates to me daily using palindromes", and you gave an example that your birthday was the reverse of the month and day of the september 11th terrorist attack. 2 numbers would not have been enough information to predict that event; had you have gone to the government before the attack, claiming "9/11 is my birthday backwards so something bad will happen on that day" what do you think they would say?

I might go further and ask, how would you have known what year that the attack would occur? Why not september 11th, 2002?

I won't be reading through the rest of your debate sorry.

Oh, God wasn't giving me this information to predict the September 11th attacks (I received these messages years after the attacks occurred). Instead, God was sharing this to tell me that my sin was like that of a terrorist, in that they led to the death of innocent people.

You see, our sins kill people--just like the sin of others killed Jesus thousands of years ago. That was the message God was sharing with me through those messages (God has used other coincidences to confirm that message).

Seems kind of arbitrary to swap the numbers 11 and 9 around in that order, doesn't it? Also isn't it arbitrary to pick the month and the day, not the the year and the month for example? How do you know god isn't referring you to other dates that have 9's and 11's in them for other sorts of hidden messages like that?

BradK, excellent questions! But God used these set of coincidences on the May 1, 2011--the same day that the death of Osama Bin Laden was announced to the world--and the same that Pope John Paul II was beatified. My names is Juan Pablo, which is John Paul in Spanish. God used the numbers 9/11 and 11/9 as part of a greater set of coincidences on that day!

That's how I know God was referring to the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington D.C.

If you read my debate, you'll get a better understanding of what I'm saying.

With these coincidences, God was telling me to kill the sinning terrorist inside of me!

That's essentially the message God was sharing. It was very creative!
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:58:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:54:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
logical positivism, which held to the thesis that any proposition that is not a) analytical or b) empirically testable is nonsense.

The quote in the OP only refers to scientific, practical hypotheses. It does not apply to all statements that can ever be made.

Can you test the proposition "if you cant test it, forget about it"? You can't, so forget about it.

Aren't you using the axiom at the same time you are trying to say that the axiom is invalid? That's paradoxical.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:03:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:30:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:07:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.

What sort of stuff that convinces you but not others, are you referring to?

For one, I see no way abiogenesis could occur. I see clear chemical arrangements that are destructive to other processes and arrangements. All experiments that come close to reproducing biological elements from scratch are all delicate operations guided by the intelligent mind of a scientist and with substantial amounts of precursor chemicals harvested from existing biological sources or by processes destructive to other organic material (aka Prebiotic feedstock).

Wouldn't that just be god of the gaps fallacy?

All of any believe is a belief of the gaps. Atheist say we have not found how these arrangements could arise from non-living material, most of the hypothesis for abiogensis have gone untested in the smallest degree.

The RNA world in its earliest incarnation was proposed in 1967. The name RNA world used in 1986. But not till 2009 was any experiment to judge it's validity done. Side not some popular hypothesis in Evolution have gone untested for over 50 years.

So the belief that it is possible and the hopes of discovering how it might have been done, put some on the side for abiogenesis. This position is founded on the denial of anything other than man being intelligent, and certainly necessary for a denial of god.

Now I admit something I hope for to be discovered in the future. I have my thoughts about a unifying theory of gravity and some of that thought is based on circumstantial evidence and some conjecture. But most times I prefer to go with what we know today and have on hand.

For one we know that that the chemical processes to make and arrange RNA, DNA, Proteins, Nucleotides, are destructive to other components, sometimes destructive to the same components, and occur in vastly different presupposed conditions.

This inability for these physical-chemical arrangements to form naturally along side each other and successfully combine with each other in anything other than the most delicately controlled, intelligently controlled processes, tells me that some kind of Highly-intelligent creator of life is involved.

It is not a god of the gaps. My conclusion is built on the presence of information that states empirically "A" biological chemical can not be made near, with, around, "B" biological chemical, except in an already living cell.

To state that life can occur from non-living material, is a belief that somewhere in the gaps of not knowing will be found an answer to something non-theist have hope in.

So "God of the gaps" is derisive diatribe saying, don't believe in God because what theories (abiogenesis) are correct based on what we don't understand and what we don't know yet.

No Our God, My God, is not a god of the gaps, My God is a God of what evidence we have before us.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:17:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:03:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:30:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:07:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.

What sort of stuff that convinces you but not others, are you referring to?

For one, I see no way abiogenesis could occur. I see clear chemical arrangements that are destructive to other processes and arrangements. All experiments that come close to reproducing biological elements from scratch are all delicate operations guided by the intelligent mind of a scientist and with substantial amounts of precursor chemicals harvested from existing biological sources or by processes destructive to other organic material (aka Prebiotic feedstock).

Wouldn't that just be god of the gaps fallacy?

All of any believe is a belief of the gaps. Atheist say we have not found how these arrangements could arise from non-living material, most of the hypothesis for abiogensis have gone untested in the smallest degree.

The RNA world in its earliest incarnation was proposed in 1967. The name RNA world used in 1986. But not till 2009 was any experiment to judge it's validity done. Side not some popular hypothesis in Evolution have gone untested for over 50 years.

So the belief that it is possible and the hopes of discovering how it might have been done, put some on the side for abiogenesis. This position is founded on the denial of anything other than man being intelligent, and certainly necessary for a denial of god.

Now I admit something I hope for to be discovered in the future. I have my thoughts about a unifying theory of gravity and some of that thought is based on circumstantial evidence and some conjecture. But most times I prefer to go with what we know today and have on hand.

For one we know that that the chemical processes to make and arrange RNA, DNA, Proteins, Nucleotides, are destructive to other components, sometimes destructive to the same components, and occur in vastly different presupposed conditions.

This inability for these physical-chemical arrangements to form naturally along side each other and successfully combine with each other in anything other than the most delicately controlled, intelligently controlled processes, tells me that some kind of Highly-intelligent creator of life is involved.

It is not a god of the gaps. My conclusion is built on the presence of information that states empirically "A" biological chemical can not be made near, with, around, "B" biological chemical, except in an already living cell.

To state that life can occur from non-living material, is a belief that somewhere in the gaps of not knowing will be found an answer to something non-theist have hope in.

So "God of the gaps" is derisive diatribe saying, don't believe in God because what theories (abiogenesis) are correct based on what we don't understand and what we don't know yet.

No Our God, My God, is not a god of the gaps, My God is a God of what evidence we have before us.

I will be honest that a lot of biology is out of my league, so the stance I'm going to take unless I study it more in depth, would be that I simply don't know. I'm not certain that intelligent intervention was necessary to make the first living cell, so it's a claim I'm not going to agree with until I can convince myself of it. Right now there are just too many variables and things that I simply don't know about biology, to make up my mind on the matter.

This just popped into my mind though: Richard Dawkins is a very firm atheist, and also happens to study biology. He is not convinced that the first living cells needed some sort of god to intervene and put them together, and he is an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. I mean if he's not convinced that there had to be an intervening god, he would probably have a good reason.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:25:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
If we want to debate whether or not god exists, then we need to say what god is first. Just for sake of argument I'll use the definition that most people seem to agree with:

All-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who exists beyond space and time.

This is one of the tools from Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle " an electron, say " in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

That's a pretty succinct way of saying it so I'll let the quote speak for itself. Does anyone who believes in god disagree with either the definition of god I've given, or the notion that untestable hypotheses aren't worth consideration? If not, then that pretty much ends the god debate, from a scientific point of view at least.

If spiritually, people like to believe in god, then of course they have the religious freedom to do so. But scientifically, they have no justification. Unless they want to provide a claim that can be tested, for example a claim that god intervenes in day to day life in some way. If there are no such falsifiable claims however, it seems like the god debate is over, to me at least, since I'm a skeptic rational.

You don't need to test something in order to know something is true, sometimes all we have to do is think about it and we know it is true. For example, we know a priori that there cannot be an all red house with a blue brick, because to be all red means there is no room for a blue brick. We don't need to build an all red house multiple times to test it, we just know. There are many arguments for God that attempt to show God exists in a similar way. Also, we could test certain premises for arguments that try to show God exists, even if the test itself, without the accompanying premises, wouldn't show God exists.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:27:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:54:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:14:08 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:53:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/24/2014 9:54:05 PM, BradK wrote:
Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.

Is that proposition testable or falsifiable? No?

/thread

I think you may have missed the whole idea of the quote.

No, I got the idea exactly. It's a self-defeating statement. It smacks of logical positivism, which held to the thesis that any proposition that is not a) analytical or b) empirically testable is nonsense. The obvious reply was is that proposition itself analytical or empircally testable? It wasn't, so it was a self refuting statement. This is basically the same thing. The statement itself is self-defeating. The scientism tha runs rampant today in certain circles seems just a permutation of logical positivism.

I don't understand why so many self-professed skeptics aren't more skeptical of their epistemologies... :/


The idea is that if you can't test it, then forget about it.

Can you test the proposition "if you cant test it, forget about it"? You can't, so forget about it.

Like the claim that we are all just brains in jars, and all of our experiences are created as sort of a virtual reality for the brain in the jar, but aren't real. It's a solid claim but there's no way to test it, so why should we spend any time worrying about it? Why worry about that claim over another claim like "the entire universe is just an elementary particle in another universe". Why can't that other universe be ruled by pig men or have a gravity that is stronger than electromagnetism? There's no end to the ways we could come up with unfalsifiable hypothesis. So why worry about any of them?

Be skeptical, ask questions, I know the judeo-christian religion encourages inquiry. the Jewish people have a saying that God held a mountain over their heads to accept the Torah. They are an artistic culture but highly skeptical. You can look at their laws for eye-witness accounts and in ancient Hebrew you could not say He said this, or He said that to another Jew. That would be dismissed out right. You had to word it in a way that you were making an account, IE.. "I heard him say" and you were held to your own account.

But I digress.. What answers has Science given? The Big Bang does not answer what caused the universe to form. It does not state how it got started. Evolution does not say how life emerged on a relatively young planet.

Science stops short of ever answering a question that ends in God.

Why is there form at all? No answer from science. What even propels some mass having force carriers to come from vacuum energy and absorbed back? Science has no answer.

Science has no answer because few scientist dare to cross that bridge. But it doesn't stop the intellectually honest. What has changed the hearts and minds of so many live-long atheist? Solid honest inquiries into the quantum, into the biological machines inside the simplest of cells, etc..

Why would you even want to be Atheist, when so many accepted immoral behavior is also physically unhealthy. Even if you are an atheist I encourage you to pray. Self dialogue is completely healthy, a way to bridge the subconscious and conscious minds. Healthy and prevalent in the thinking of many great people. Socrates said he had a Daimon, a muse that conversed with him.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:35:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:17:38 AM, BradK wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:03:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:30:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:07:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.

What sort of stuff that convinces you but not others, are you referring to?

For one, I see no way abiogenesis could occur. I see clear chemical arrangements that are destructive to other processes and arrangements. All experiments that come close to reproducing biological elements from scratch are all delicate operations guided by the intelligent mind of a scientist and with substantial amounts of precursor chemicals harvested from existing biological sources or by processes destructive to other organic material (aka Prebiotic feedstock).

Wouldn't that just be god of the gaps fallacy?

All of any believe is a belief of the gaps. Atheist say we have not found how these arrangements could arise from non-living material, most of the hypothesis for abiogensis have gone untested in the smallest degree.

The RNA world in its earliest incarnation was proposed in 1967. The name RNA world used in 1986. But not till 2009 was any experiment to judge it's validity done. Side not some popular hypothesis in Evolution have gone untested for over 50 years.

So the belief that it is possible and the hopes of discovering how it might have been done, put some on the side for abiogenesis. This position is founded on the denial of anything other than man being intelligent, and certainly necessary for a denial of god.

Now I admit something I hope for to be discovered in the future. I have my thoughts about a unifying theory of gravity and some of that thought is based on circumstantial evidence and some conjecture. But most times I prefer to go with what we know today and have on hand.

For one we know that that the chemical processes to make and arrange RNA, DNA, Proteins, Nucleotides, are destructive to other components, sometimes destructive to the same components, and occur in vastly different presupposed conditions.

This inability for these physical-chemical arrangements to form naturally along side each other and successfully combine with each other in anything other than the most delicately controlled, intelligently controlled processes, tells me that some kind of Highly-intelligent creator of life is involved.

It is not a god of the gaps. My conclusion is built on the presence of information that states empirically "A" biological chemical can not be made near, with, around, "B" biological chemical, except in an already living cell.

To state that life can occur from non-living material, is a belief that somewhere in the gaps of not knowing will be found an answer to something non-theist have hope in.

So "God of the gaps" is derisive diatribe saying, don't believe in God because what theories (abiogenesis) are correct based on what we don't understand and what we don't know yet.

No Our God, My God, is not a god of the gaps, My God is a God of what evidence we have before us.

I will be honest that a lot of biology is out of my league, so the stance I'm going to take unless I study it more in depth, would be that I simply don't know. I'm not certain that intelligent intervention was necessary to make the first living cell, so it's a claim I'm not going to agree with until I can convince myself of it. Right now there are just too many variables and things that I simply don't know about biology, to make up my mind on the matter.

This just popped into my mind though: Richard Dawkins is a very firm atheist, and also happens to study biology. He is not convinced that the first living cells needed some sort of god to intervene and put them together, and he is an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. I mean if he's not convinced that there had to be an intervening god, he would probably have a good reason.

Richard Dawkins is an excellent evolutionary biologists. He definitely knows his stuff! But he also knows that it's highly statistically unlikely for a cell to develop all on its own without the essential biomacromolecules and biological template to guide it. Current evolutionary biologist make the assumption that the first cell could have been created randomly all on its own. This is a big leap, but they do it because they don't want to have to rely on some kind of pre-existing intelligent lifeform they have no evidence of.

Though much of theories behind evolutionary biology are irrefutably true, not all of them are--especially since some of us have evidence that God exist and that God is intelligent enough to communicate with us.

Most evolutionary biologists simply aren't aware of the big picture just yet--but eventually they will be.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:41:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:17:38 AM, BradK wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:03:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:39:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:30:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:07:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 10:50:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I understand some of the same stuff that convinced me will not convince others. But I certainly would say that if someone honestly investigates the claims of those that believe in god, and those that do not. More leaps of faith and lies are seen from the latter.

What sort of stuff that convinces you but not others, are you referring to?

For one, I see no way abiogenesis could occur. I see clear chemical arrangements that are destructive to other processes and arrangements. All experiments that come close to reproducing biological elements from scratch are all delicate operations guided by the intelligent mind of a scientist and with substantial amounts of precursor chemicals harvested from existing biological sources or by processes destructive to other organic material (aka Prebiotic feedstock).

Wouldn't that just be god of the gaps fallacy?

All of any believe is a belief of the gaps. Atheist say we have not found how these arrangements could arise from non-living material, most of the hypothesis for abiogensis have gone untested in the smallest degree.

The RNA world in its earliest incarnation was proposed in 1967. The name RNA world used in 1986. But not till 2009 was any experiment to judge it's validity done. Side not some popular hypothesis in Evolution have gone untested for over 50 years.

So the belief that it is possible and the hopes of discovering how it might have been done, put some on the side for abiogenesis. This position is founded on the denial of anything other than man being intelligent, and certainly necessary for a denial of god.

Now I admit something I hope for to be discovered in the future. I have my thoughts about a unifying theory of gravity and some of that thought is based on circumstantial evidence and some conjecture. But most times I prefer to go with what we know today and have on hand.

For one we know that that the chemical processes to make and arrange RNA, DNA, Proteins, Nucleotides, are destructive to other components, sometimes destructive to the same components, and occur in vastly different presupposed conditions.

This inability for these physical-chemical arrangements to form naturally along side each other and successfully combine with each other in anything other than the most delicately controlled, intelligently controlled processes, tells me that some kind of Highly-intelligent creator of life is involved.

It is not a god of the gaps. My conclusion is built on the presence of information that states empirically "A" biological chemical can not be made near, with, around, "B" biological chemical, except in an already living cell.

To state that life can occur from non-living material, is a belief that somewhere in the gaps of not knowing will be found an answer to something non-theist have hope in.

So "God of the gaps" is derisive diatribe saying, don't believe in God because what theories (abiogenesis) are correct based on what we don't understand and what we don't know yet.

No Our God, My God, is not a god of the gaps, My God is a God of what evidence we have before us.

I will be honest that a lot of biology is out of my league, so the stance I'm going to take unless I study it more in depth, would be that I simply don't know. I'm not certain that intelligent intervention was necessary to make the first living cell, so it's a claim I'm not going to agree with until I can convince myself of it. Right now there are just too many variables and things that I simply don't know about biology, to make up my mind on the matter.

This just popped into my mind though: Richard Dawkins is a very firm atheist, and also happens to study biology. He is not convinced that the first living cells needed some sort of god to intervene and put them together, and he is an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. I mean if he's not convinced that there had to be an intervening god, he would probably have a good reason.

Evolutionary Biology begins with life and takes it from there. He is not a molecular biologist. Richard Dawkins actually says he does not know how life began. He puts forth many hypothesis to describe the emergence of life, but he holds none to heart.

"The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it" - Richard Dawkins

He assumes Life from inorganics is almost an inevitable trait of matter. I think from his website and some other things he has said, I assume Richard Dawkins thinks the process of Life starts at a cosmological level and scale down from there to organics.

https://www.youtube.com...

Most Theist would agree life is the result of cosmological characteristics and physical laws "fine tuned" haha.

but he holds abiogenesis, and I have not found why He personally does. If any one knows of why Richard Dawkins thinks abiogenesis is possible. I would like to see that info.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 12:53:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 12:41:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/25/2014 12:17:38 AM, BradK wrote:
This just popped into my mind though: Richard Dawkins is a very firm atheist, and also happens to study biology. He is not convinced that the first living cells needed some sort of god to intervene and put them together, and he is an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. I mean if he's not convinced that there had to be an intervening god, he would probably have a good reason.

Evolutionary Biology begins with life and takes it from there. He is not a molecular biologist. Richard Dawkins actually says he does not know how life began. He puts forth many hypothesis to describe the emergence of life, but he holds none to heart.

"The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it" - Richard Dawkins

He assumes Life from inorganics is almost an inevitable trait of matter. I think from his website and some other things he has said, I assume Richard Dawkins thinks the process of Life starts at a cosmological level and scale down from there to organics.

https://www.youtube.com...

Most Theist would agree life is the result of cosmological characteristics and physical laws "fine tuned" haha.

but he holds abiogenesis, and I have not found why He personally does. If any one knows of why Richard Dawkins thinks abiogenesis is possible. I would like to see that info.

I don't think he accepts abiogenesis as 100% fact like he does evolution (though I could be wrong if there is a quote from him on abiogenesis). I think it's more about just not knowing, and assuming there was no "hand of god" involved because there's no evidence for a god in the first place.

When given 2 possibilities though, you always pick the negative/null claim unless there's support for the positive side of the claim. For example, we have the claim "the hand of god created the first living cells on earth". As you've pointed out, there's reason to believe this is true, but sadly since there is no evidence to prove that it is true, we must assume the null of that statement: "it is not known how life originated on earth". And that's all we can say at the moment.