Interesting argument. Points well taken. That however will not change my belief as much as I am sure my post will not change yours. At what point in our lifetime do you think science will discover the origin of life? If it does happen in my lifetime, perhaps I will change my belief, If not, well....I will rather take the status quo to my grave. Nice engaging you
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Why would you be sure of either and why do you say it as if that's OK. A scientist should be able to change any of their belief in light of evidence. If I didn't think minds cannot be changed, I wouldn't engage in conversation. On one hand, I hope you could be swayed by evidence and logic (you are scientist after all, right?) and I know for certain I am ready to abandon any of the positions I currently hold if I am presented with convincing evidence. Anything you have decided to hold true no matter what is a detriment to your scientific effectiveness as this means that you are willing to overlook contradicting evidence and that's not how you do science.
Quite possibly, your religious beliefs don't have a direct reflection on your field of study and you might be doing proper scientific work, but put your religious beliefs under the same rigor as evolution has been subjected to and tell me if they hold up. In all of my comments, I ask you for evidence and you have firmly decided not to provide any. I guess at least to an extent you realize you don't have any and that holding religious beliefs is actually unreasonable.
There is a very clear difference between simply mentioning that all the evidence points to the fact that evolution is indeed the process which directly led to us being here now and making the unsubstantiated assertion that it was some specific god that made it all. One is based on evidence and is reasonable and the other one is ideological belief based on indoctrination. That's why I think trying to present evolutionist and creationist as similar in any way is fallacious and possibly intellectually dishonest.
There's no way for me to know that, how could I ;) But it's not like we have zero knowledge about it. You might want to look into what we know already and what processes that might have taken part in that we are slowly starting to understand. It's really fascinating stuff.
The big question that I think you should ask yourself is why would you hold a specific belief before the evidence is in? Why would you want to believe something you don't have a good reason to?
There is no status quo on the matter really...
Same here. :) Though I have to admit that the fact that you didn't even address my questions and calls for evidence is a bit frustrating ;)
I can only hope that the scientist in you would win over.
OK. I guess I missed your question unintentionally. Can you please go over it again?
That can certainly happen with comments of this length ;)
I guess my questions boil down to "What is the evidence you have for a creator?" and if it's anywhere near the evidence we have for evolution.
Well. Let us say I do not have any scientifically tenable evidence. The basis of evolution that has not been evidenced for is what we religious people normally refer to as creator. You can call it a mere hypothesis but that is what I am holding on to until proven otherwise. I hope I have honestly addressed your question
Yes, thank you for your honest answer.
What I honestly don't understand is why would anybody, especially a scientist, willfully hold a position that they understand is not supported by any evidence.
As far as science goes, that's objectively the wrong approach, don't you think? Aren't we supposed to withhold belief until the hypothesis becomes supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence and reliability?
apologies for the late reply. Hypothesis can be tested to be correct or otherwise. That is why it is call hypothesis. If I hold on to the hypothesis that there is a creator, it remains an hypothesis until proven otherwise
Even bigger apologies for the much slower reply! ;)
If something is obviously a hypothesis then, why would one assert it's true? That's the part I see as unreasonable. I'm not sure I understand what "hold a hypothesis" is supposed to mean exactly.