Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion & Abiogenesis

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 10:50:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

Because then life wouldn't have risen from non-life itself, it would've ultimately begun due to God. It's mutually exclusive with religions that believe in a creator god.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 10:51:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 10:50:27 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

Because then life wouldn't have risen from non-life itself, it would've ultimately begun due to God. It's mutually exclusive with religions that believe in a creator god.

God created the universe. Creating the universe =/= creating life. God could have guided abiogenesis too, like theistic evolution.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 11:06:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 10:51:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/17/2015 10:50:27 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

Because then life wouldn't have risen from non-life itself, it would've ultimately begun due to God. It's mutually exclusive with religions that believe in a creator god.

God created the universe. Creating the universe =/= creating life. God could have guided abiogenesis too, like theistic evolution.

He created the universe, which in turn began planetary systems, which in turn began life. So he indirectly caused life.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 11:07:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 11:06:23 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 7/17/2015 10:51:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/17/2015 10:50:27 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

Because then life wouldn't have risen from non-life itself, it would've ultimately begun due to God. It's mutually exclusive with religions that believe in a creator god.

God created the universe. Creating the universe =/= creating life. God could have guided abiogenesis too, like theistic evolution.

He created the universe, which in turn began planetary systems, which in turn began life. So he indirectly caused life.

Yes, so? Abiogenesis is a direct theory -- directly, life was created abiotically. So even if God created it indirectly, whatever created it directly is probably abiogenesis.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:20:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
They aren't mutually exclusive.

God does things. Describing the process that God uses in order to do something does not disprove that God did it.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:02:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

I agree - I don't understand the rejection of evidence in order to protect a belief built on ignorance. That path causes the most cognitive dissonance, does it not?!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 6:38:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll say the unsayable - we materialists accept abiogenesis on faith. Nobody knows how life first originated, and as it happened 4 billion years ago we may never know. Even when we produce 'life in a test tube' we won't know that is what happended - at best we'll know what could have (or perhaps probably) happened.

The difference is what materialists (like me) have faith in. Materialists have faith in our ability to understand the world using our reason. Something that can't be understood using reason would be 'magic', and we don't believe in magic. Put another way, I don't know how life arose - I am only sure how it didn't !

I can't justify rejecting divine creation using formal logic, and if you accuse me of being unscientific in rejecting creationism on insufficient grounds, well I have no defence - although obviously I consider the grounds sufficient!
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:03:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

Response: Life coming from non-life is impossible, unless God purposely created from non-life. In Islam, we believe Allah did create the first man from non-life. He used dust and water and moulded it into shape of a man then placed a soul or spirit in the moulded shape, which made it come alive and become a human being. That person was Adam.

So we accept abiogenesis when God is included as the originator of the process. If you accept no God exist, then abiogenesis is false. Abiogenesis can only be true if God exist and caused it to occur.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:05:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:03:38 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

Response: Life coming from non-life is impossible, unless God purposely created from non-life. In Islam, we believe Allah did create the first man from non-life. He used dust and water and moulded it into shape of a man then placed a soul or spirit in the moulded shape, which made it come alive and become a human being. That person was Adam.

So you reject evolution?


So we accept abiogenesis when God is included as the originator of the process. If you accept no God exist, then abiogenesis is false. Abiogenesis can only be true if God exist and caused it to occur.

Citations needed. Abiogenesis can happen either way.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:11:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:05:01 AM, tejretics wrote:

So you reject evolution?

Response: Yes. Evolution is not true. Science is based on observable, testable evidence. Yet neither you nor anyone can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another species. So evolution is false.

So we accept abiogenesis when God is included as the originator of the process. If you accept no God exist, then abiogenesis is false. Abiogenesis can only be true if God exist and caused it to occur.

Citations needed. Abiogenesis can happen either way.

Response: Your own failure to show observable evidence of non-life creating life without contradicting yourself is proof from yourself. So citations are not needed, since your logic confirms it.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:15:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:11:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:05:01 AM, tejretics wrote:

So you reject evolution?

Response: Yes. Evolution is not true. Science is based on observable, testable evidence. Yet neither you nor anyone can provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another species. So evolution is false.

Evolution is made of two processes: genetic mutations + selection. Both have been observed naturally, even as biased mutations.


So we accept abiogenesis when God is included as the originator of the process. If you accept no God exist, then abiogenesis is false. Abiogenesis can only be true if God exist and caused it to occur.

Citations needed. Abiogenesis can happen either way.

Response: Your own failure to show observable evidence of non-life creating life without contradicting yourself is proof from yourself. So citations are not needed, since your logic confirms it.

Thermodynamic dissipation theory -- formation of life allowed entropy to escape into more molecules on Earth, esp. since cell material allows filtering UV radiation to become weaker infrared, increasing levels of entropy. Also, food is required by life for the same reason -- increasing entropy. Closed systems under low entropy are under 'thermodynamic stress,' and abiogenesis is the sole explanation for relieving that stress.[http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:19:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:15:21 AM, tejretics wrote:


Evolution is made of two processes: genetic mutations + selection. Both have been observed naturally, even as biased mutations.

Response: Yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, you could not do so. So your own failure supports the fact that such evolution is false.

Thermodynamic dissipation theory -- formation of life allowed entropy to escape into more molecules on Earth, esp. since cell material allows filtering UV radiation to become weaker infrared, increasing levels of entropy. Also, food is required by life for the same reason -- increasing entropy. Closed systems under low entropy are under 'thermodynamic stress,' and abiogenesis is the sole explanation for relieving that stress.[http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...]

Response: The theory is invalid since neither you nor anyone can show observable evidence of non-life creating life.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:22:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:19:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:15:21 AM, tejretics wrote:


Evolution is made of two processes: genetic mutations + selection. Both have been observed naturally, even as biased mutations.

Response: Yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, you could not do so. So your own failure supports the fact that such evolution is false.

Macroevolution takes thousands of years. Only people who live for > thousands of years can "observe" it.


Thermodynamic dissipation theory -- formation of life allowed entropy to escape into more molecules on Earth, esp. since cell material allows filtering UV radiation to become weaker infrared, increasing levels of entropy. Also, food is required by life for the same reason -- increasing entropy. Closed systems under low entropy are under 'thermodynamic stress,' and abiogenesis is the sole explanation for relieving that stress.[http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...]

Response: The theory is invalid since neither you nor anyone can show observable evidence of non-life creating life.

Reductio -- God is invalid since you can't see him.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:24:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 10:31:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I have noticed that many religious people reject the idea that life originally arose via abiogenesis on accounts of religion.

Religion and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive. If God exists, I see no reason why the religious reject the idea that God watched over abiogenesis.

While I understand why creationism opposes the idea, abiogenesis, even without God, is possible. And why couldn't have God commanded this abiogenesis to occur?

Completely agree
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:24:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:22:19 AM, tejretics wrote:

Macroevolution takes thousands of years. Only people who live for > thousands of years can "observe" it.

Response: Thus making my point that it was never observed. So macroevolution is false.

Response: The theory is invalid since neither you nor anyone can show observable evidence of non-life creating life.

Reductio -- God is invalid since you can't see him.

Response: Then according to your logic, both you, God, and your brain abiogenesis is invalid, since I can't see them.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:26:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:24:50 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:22:19 AM, tejretics wrote:

Macroevolution takes thousands of years. Only people who live for > thousands of years can "observe" it.

Response: Thus making my point that it was never observed. So macroevolution is false.

See reductio.


Response: The theory is invalid since neither you nor anyone can show observable evidence of non-life creating life.

Reductio -- God is invalid since you can't see him.

Response: Then according to your logic, both you, God, and your brain abiogenesis is invalid, since I can't see them.

That's not *my* logic, that's *yours*. Hence it's called a "reductio".
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:30:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:26:10 AM, tejretics wrote:

See reductio.

Response: See deductive logic.

That's not *my* logic, that's *yours*. Hence it's called a "reductio".

Response: That's your logic, since you said it, which was shown to be invalid.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:30:39 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:26:10 AM, tejretics wrote:

See reductio.

Response: See deductive logic.

That's not *my* logic, that's *yours*. Hence it's called a "reductio".

Response: That's your logic, since you said it, which was shown to be invalid.

You said we haven't seen abiogenesis or evolution, so it's false. Meaning your criteria is that if something isn't seen, it's wrong. So if I say I can't see God, God is false. If I say I can't see you, you don't exist. Ad infinitum.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:34:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:31:59 AM, tejretics wrote:

You said we haven't seen abiogenesis or evolution, so it's false. Meaning your criteria is that if something isn't seen, it's wrong. So if I say I can't see God, God is false. If I say I can't see you, you don't exist. Ad infinitum.

Response: Rather, your strawman of my position is that something that isn't seen is wrong. So using your strawman, I can say that I cannot see you or your brain or abiogenesis. So using your logic, you and your brain and abiogenesis is wrong.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:38:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fatihah wrote:

Then what is your position?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:34:10 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:31:59 AM, tejretics wrote:

You said we haven't seen abiogenesis or evolution, so it's false. Meaning your criteria is that if something isn't seen, it's wrong. So if I say I can't see God, God is false. If I say I can't see you, you don't exist. Ad infinitum.

Response: Rather, your strawman of my position is that something that isn't seen is wrong. So using your strawman, I can say that I cannot see you or your brain or abiogenesis. So using your logic, you and your brain and abiogenesis is wrong.

Either your argument is:

P1. If something can't be seen, it's false
P2. Evolution isn't seen
C. It's false

Which it isn't, since you claimed it was a strawman. Then your argument is:

P1. ???
P2. Evolution isn't seen.
C. Therefore, evolution is false.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:46:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:39:44 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:34:10 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:31:59 AM, tejretics wrote:

You said we haven't seen abiogenesis or evolution, so it's false. Meaning your criteria is that if something isn't seen, it's wrong. So if I say I can't see God, God is false. If I say I can't see you, you don't exist. Ad infinitum.

Response: Rather, your strawman of my position is that something that isn't seen is wrong. So using your strawman, I can say that I cannot see you or your brain or abiogenesis. So using your logic, you and your brain and abiogenesis is wrong.

Either your argument is:

P1. If something can't be seen, it's false
P2. Evolution isn't seen
C. It's false

Which it isn't, since you claimed it was a strawman. Then your argument is:

P1. ???
P2. Evolution isn't seen.
C. Therefore, evolution is false.

Response: My logic is that proof of physical change requires observation of the change. Whereas proof of existence does not require seeing something exist. Meaning you cannot see me, yet you can deduce logically that I exist because you can see my created response and logically conclude that someone must exist in order to create a response. So you concluded I exist without seeing me.

Yet if I asked you what color shirt did I just put on, you have no idea do you? No, because that is a physical change which you could not know unless you observed the change. Thus showing that proof of physical change requires observation of the change.

Similarly, a species becoming another species is a physical change. Non-life becoming life is a physical change. So they both require observation as proof it occurred, and you have none. So both are false. Whereas God"s existence does not require observation because we can conclude He through his creation.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:49:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:46:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:39:44 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:34:10 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:31:59 AM, tejretics wrote:

You said we haven't seen abiogenesis or evolution, so it's false. Meaning your criteria is that if something isn't seen, it's wrong. So if I say I can't see God, God is false. If I say I can't see you, you don't exist. Ad infinitum.

Response: Rather, your strawman of my position is that something that isn't seen is wrong. So using your strawman, I can say that I cannot see you or your brain or abiogenesis. So using your logic, you and your brain and abiogenesis is wrong.

Either your argument is:

P1. If something can't be seen, it's false
P2. Evolution isn't seen
C. It's false

Which it isn't, since you claimed it was a strawman. Then your argument is:

P1. ???
P2. Evolution isn't seen.
C. Therefore, evolution is false.

Response: My logic is that proof of physical change requires observation of the change. Whereas proof of existence does not require seeing something exist. Meaning you cannot see me, yet you can deduce logically that I exist because you can see my created response and logically conclude that someone must exist in order to create a response. So you concluded I exist without seeing me.

Yet if I asked you what color shirt did I just put on, you have no idea do you? No, because that is a physical change which you could not know unless you observed the change. Thus showing that proof of physical change requires observation of the change.

Similarly, a species becoming another species is a physical change. Non-life becoming life is a physical change. So they both require observation as proof it occurred, and you have none. So both are false. Whereas God"s existence does not require observation because we can conclude He through his creation.

This denies all aspects of abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. Take this example:

You see multiple puddles in many streets on your way to work. The road is wet, as are the plants. There are infinite possible explanations, e.g.:

1. It rained last night
2. A giant glacier meteorite that would have melted on contact with the atmosphere the size of the wet areas came into contact with the atmosphere

Etc.

But via IBE, we can know that #1 is a priori most likely, if not true.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:54:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:49:19 AM, tejretics wrote:

This denies all aspects of abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. Take this example:

You see multiple puddles in many streets on your way to work. The road is wet, as are the plants. There are infinite possible explanations, e.g.:

1. It rained last night
2. A giant glacier meteorite that would have melted on contact with the atmosphere the size of the wet areas came into contact with the atmosphere

Etc.

But via IBE, we can know that #1 is a priori most likely, if not true.

Response: Can you name what color shirt I have on and prove it? No. So your own failure shows that proof of physical change requires observation of the change.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:55:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:54:04 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:49:19 AM, tejretics wrote:

This denies all aspects of abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. Take this example:

You see multiple puddles in many streets on your way to work. The road is wet, as are the plants. There are infinite possible explanations, e.g.:

1. It rained last night
2. A giant glacier meteorite that would have melted on contact with the atmosphere the size of the wet areas came into contact with the atmosphere

Etc.

But via IBE, we can know that #1 is a priori most likely, if not true.

Response: Can you name what color shirt I have on and prove it? No. So your own failure shows that proof of physical change requires observation of the change.

Hasty generalization.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] Refute my rain example and IBE.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:56:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:55:09 AM, tejretics wrote:

Hasty generalization.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] Refute my rain example and IBE.

Response: Your example was refuted by your own failure to tell us what color shirt I have on without seeing it.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:58:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:56:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:55:09 AM, tejretics wrote:

Hasty generalization.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] Refute my rain example and IBE.

Response: Your example was refuted by your own failure to tell us what color shirt I have on without seeing it.

Your 'refutation' is a hasty generalization. One does not imply all. Refute my example, since yours is a hasty generalization.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fatihah
Posts: 7,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 10:00:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 9:58:45 AM, tejretics wrote:

Your 'refutation' is a hasty generalization. One does not imply all. Refute my example, since yours is a hasty generalization.

Response: Yet your repeated failure to answer the question shows otherwise, thus supporting the fact that proof of physical change requires observation of the change.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 10:01:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 10:00:40 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/19/2015 9:58:45 AM, tejretics wrote:

Your 'refutation' is a hasty generalization. One does not imply all. Refute my example, since yours is a hasty generalization.

Response: Yet your repeated failure to answer the question shows otherwise, thus supporting the fact that proof of physical change requires observation of the change.

What I'm saying is, *one* question unanswered doesn't imply *all* change requires observation. One doesn't entail all. Read the Wikipedia article I linked.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass