Originally posted by avalanchethecati agree, for even when we are presented with the same data we may interpret it differently and thus we are left with what seems plausible to us, is it not the case?
I just deleted a huge amount of statistical data I've been dredging up. Fact is, there's a helluva lot of stats out there that claim either to show that the 'godless' origin of life is impossible, unlikely, possible, likely or inevitable, depending on whose theories you favour, and as far as I can see, without specific knowledge of the actual mechan ...[text shortened]... en without his direct intervention. The christian god is all a bit ad-hoc for my tastes.
Is it possible to prove life in Earth began without supernatural intervention?
Yes, of course it's possible.
Can we do so now?
No, we can't. We have some suggestions of where theories might come from, but not much more.
The key unspoken question though are non of the above, but this: if it is proven, can we convince religious believers?
The answer to that is I would suggest, no.
Originally posted by 667joeTo assume there is a god, you should first define what you assume god to be.
Assuming there is a god, how did he get here?
Let's assume god to be a creator or facilitator of the human species, as opposed to a creator of everything. How he got here would be easy to explain...the same way or a similar way we would travel to the moon or mars....except, let's for the sake of argument assume interstellar travel.
Originally posted by amannionIf it is not possible to prove, then it is not provable.
Is it possible to prove life in Earth began without supernatural intervention?
Yes, of course it's possible.
Can we do so now?
No, we can't.
It's lika saying that it is possible to prove that the messiah will return. It's not provable now, but when he comes, then it is proven as a fact that he did.
If this is true, then everything is provable, not just right now.
Religious matters are never provable. If they are provable, they wouldn't be religious, would they?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundNo, I don't think that's possible. You can plausibly demonstrate that god is not necessary, or that he appears redundant, but I don't think it's possible to 'prove' he wasn't involved in the process. No matter how detailed your naturalistic explanations for the origin of life may be, a theist can always place god as the moving hand behind those naturalistic processes.
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundIt is not possible to disprove Big Foot, Paul Bunyan, Zeus, Valhalla, or even The Cat in the Hat exist. So they are all just as valid a religion as any.😀
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
Originally posted by PalynkaScience has proven that it is possible to create life. We have cloned existing life, we have grown parts of one creature on another, there is even a guy who has made an organism from scratch. So, the act of creating a creature from what is already here (let's accept that animals are indigenous) such as us is plausible for a species who have attained intersteller travel...which is again plausible.
I don't get it. How has recent science proved that?
A lot of people who replied went straight for the "beardy creator and the sky fairies" option, and have rejected the possibility on that basis, so i'm answering you because you've approached the question reasonably.
My point is....A creator of man is feasible. So, if you take into account the fact that a species with no concept of science as we know it and add a healty dose of dark ages and the human condition, God (if that's what people want to all it/him/her/them) as we know it could be The best explanation they could come up with at the time.
If you took a car back to the middle ages, and asked for a description from the people of the time, what would you get? Now, if that description was retold over 1500 years what would the description transform into?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIndeed. Do you think we have any volition as to how we interpret the data? I'd like to think we do, but I'm not convinced.
i agree, for even when we are presented with the same data we may interpret it differently and thus we are left with what seems plausible to us, is it not the case?
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatmmm, it depends what you mean volition? do you mean like a wilful kind of predisposition to one view or another and thus how we interpret data is formed by other agencies, much like a newspaper editor 'slants', editorials to portray a particular aspect?
Indeed. Do you think we have any volition as to how we interpret the data? I'd like to think we do, but I'm not convinced.