Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  KateWild

  Coded logic, I don't believe you are really interested in racemic mixtures verses homochiral mixtures and the formation of enantionmers in nature. But this type of chemistry is something you can't just Google. But if I am wrong we can start from the beginning xx

  Cofty none of these articles convince me there is no creator. I am posting for the benefit of lurkers who are looking for answers, and for them to know we all leave with differing beliefs and ideas. I respect why you are atheist and I also respect others who believe in God.
• 

  cofty

  Cofty none of these articles convince me there is no creator

  None of those or the hundreds of other articles on chirality make any mention of a creator.

  They simply show evidence that chirality arose by natural means.

  Methodological naturalism is the foundation of all science.

  this type of chemistry is something you can't just Google

  Of course you can...

  Your argument is of the same sort as "rainbows are pretty - therefore Jesus"
• 

  KateWild

  Now, using simple organic molecules, the Imperial researchers have demonstrated that an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product. Importantly, the experiment works in similar conditions to those expected around pre-biotic life and displays all the signs to suggest it may be a model for how biological homochirality evolved

  
  

  This statement actually reinforces my theory that it was not natural it was engineered by the scientists. It just shows there had to be certain conditions to achieve homochirality. It could have been guided.

  
  

  Kate xx
• 

  KateWild

  Lol Cofty belittling my theory with rainbows and Jesus comments.....if you have to resort to this it weakens your ideas.

  We just have a difference of opinion and it's good for lurkers to see

  Kate xx
• 

  Coded Logic

  KateWild,

  My question isn't just one of chemistry. It's how did you asses the probability of an intellectual being guiding evolution? How can you tell the difference of naturally occurring evolution from guided evolution? And how did you determine that guided evolution was more likely?

  Also, why are you calling the intelligence "God". How have you ruled out more naturalistic explanations such as aliens?
• 

  Landy

  So with the scientific evidence I do have and then apply Ocams Razor....for me it's more probable there is an intellectual being responsible for guiding evolution in the early stages of amino acid formation.

  That's not Occam's Razor - that's the God of the Gaps. Again.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The same is true of the God hypothesis. If we have to redefine what existence means or postulate evidence is the wrong tool for the job - then that should be a red flag we are not on a path to knowledge.

  Depends how you define knowledge. If your starting assumption is that you can only get knowledge on the basis of reason and evidence then you will only get the kind of knowledge that leads to. This is circular reasoning and should be pointed out as such. To complain that God should be rejected because evidence can't touch him seems to miss the point. To complain that such a God is too mysterious is to miss the point. That God is mysterious is the point. You seem to think if you keep insisting that we should only believe what there is evidence for without proving it this somehow established itself. Where is the evidence that evidence is the only good basis for knowledge? Among philosophers it is well known that empiricism is self-refuting.

  Claim: we can only gain knowledge on the basis of evidence.

  Question: where is the evidence for the claim that we can only gain knowledge on the basis of evidence?

  If you admit there is no evidential basis for the claim in the first place then the claim refutes itself.

  
  
• 

  2+2=5

  ^^^What a load of shit^^^^
• 

  KateWild

  Codedlogic,

  My point is a scientific point and to be more specific the evidence that chemistry supports.

  They way you ask multiple questions in one go suggests to me you're not really interested in my perspective. But I will answer as much as I can as I am on my phone right now.

  I assesd the probability of an intelligent being guiding evolution by my study of chemistry. Cofty understands my points clearly and made an effort to research the chemistry and scientific studies himself and has drawn his own conclusion. I respect this very much. I suggest you read my responses to him and the articles he posted to get answers to your questions if you really want to understand my point of view.

  Lol God could be an alien I haven't ruled that out. But alien just refers to not belonging or unknown.

  I hope you have all the answers you need from all my posts thus far.

  Kate xx
• 

  KateWild

  Landy,

  I am not trying to convince you to change your ideas. But you have disagreed without supporting your point with any scientific evidence I am wrong.

  I don't want to be wrong any longer than is necessary, but with the scientific evidence I have its more probable to me there is a creator.

  Thank you for your participation though

  Kate xx