Can Forensic Science Trace the World’s Origins?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Okay, let's take God off the table.

My young niece believes in Father Christmas. This belief to her has substance and meaning. Obviously, I do not believe in Father Christmas. His non-existence is irrelevant to me and a complete non-issue without meaning or substance. I have an intellectual and grown-up 'rejection' of the thing she says she believes in. To call this rejection/disbelief a 'belief' in itself is a flagrant assault on semantics.

What colour is Father Christmas's coat?

@kellyjay said
No it isn't all I got, but if you want to debunk scripture this would be thee place to do it! We can argue about the distant past, but in that argument no matter which one of us is right neither could really sway the other. We are left with what was said then, that we could prove today. Having something occur supernaturally isn't something I can prove yet believe in, and the ...[text shortened]... oduce what it is here either. A lot of questions about the complexity of life seem to go unanswered.

Could your Bible be a work of fiction?

@deepthought said
What colour is Father Christmas's coat?

You mean the fictional one derived as a marketing tool by Coca-Cola?

Red.

@handyandy said
Could your Bible be a work of fiction?

I don’t think so. Besides there are 66 different books in the Bible which ones do you have issues with?

Do you you think some works of science are either works of fiction, wrong on assumptions, or some so called facts are in error for one reason or another?

So far here I have seen only 3 explanations on the origins of the universe which would each define the reality we live in.

Someone else came up with this name, don’t recall who. The virgin birth universe where every single thing came from nothing for no reason, shaped itself into a nice place to live completely undirected without purpose or cause, then again without direction, cause, or guidance formed life. Why should anyone believe this?

God created everything for His purpose.
Why should we accept this?

The universe has always been here in one shape or another. Why should we accept this?

Did I miss any, and why should those you disagree with be rejected on evidence?

@kellyjay said
Do you you think some works of science are either works of fiction, wrong on assumptions, or some so called facts are in error for one reason or another?

Yes! Is that where you classify the Bible?

@handyandy said
Yes! Is that where you classify the Bible?

As I pointed out to you and Duke context is all important! There are lies told in the scriptures, there are people doing evil things due to lust. I believe it (all 66) are the word of God and find it the most compelling book that there is due to how it was put together. I believe it answers some of the most important questions there are, origin, meaning, morality, and destination in a non contradictory ways.

@handyandy said
Yes! Is that where you classify the Bible?

If you are asking if I think the various translations are error free, no I don't believe
that they are error free, I think there can be issues, but not in the main points.

@kellyjay said
If you are asking if I think the various translations are error free, no I don't believe
that they are error free, I think there can be issues, but not in the main points.

Do you think Adam and Eve were real people?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You mean the fictional one derived as a marketing tool by Coca-Cola?

Red.

So you have a belief about Father Christmas. As a matter of fact the red coat appeared long before Coca-Cola's marketing campaign, which was in 1931. This is copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page:

The Cornish Quaker diarist Barclay Fox relates a family party given on 26 December 1842 that featured "the venerable effigies of Father Christmas with scarlet coat & cocked hat, stuck all over with presents for the guests, by his side the old year, a most dismal & haggard old beldame in a night cap and spectacles, then 1843 [the new year], a promising baby asleep in a cradle".

Edit: Given you don't believe in the existence of Father Christmas I'm curious as to what you mean by "fictional" here.

@deepthought said
So you have a belief about Father Christmas. As a matter of fact the red coat appeared long before Coca-Cola's marketing campaign, which was in 1931. This is copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page:[quote]The Cornish Quaker diarist Barclay Fox relates a family party given on 26 December 1842 that featured "the venerable effigies of Father Christmas with scarlet coat & c ...[text shortened]... 't believe in the existence of Father Christmas I'm curious as to what you mean by "fictional" here.

'Knowledge' of something isn't a 'belief' of something. Perhaps that is where you are going wrong sir?

Putting God back on the table, I have 'knowledge' about the God figure a Christian has 'belief' in. I've studied the evidence and found it wanting. I am detached from such a belief.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'Knowledge' of something isn't a 'belief' of something. Perhaps that is where you are going wrong sir?

Putting God back on the table, I have 'knowledge' about the God figure a Christian has 'belief' in. I've studied the evidence and found it wanting. I am detached from such a belief.

Well, to know something you have to have a belief. So you have at least two beliefs about Father Christmas, one that he wears a red coat and the other that he doesn't exist, at least in the literal sense.

I've been thinking about this recently so I'll write it in symbolic logic. Suppose we use G to denote the proposition "God exists" (and P to be any proposition). ¬G is then "God does not exist". An agent's state of belief about some proposition is B(x, P) meaning agent x believes proposition P. B(...) is a modal operator. Since we're always talking about the beliefs of a particular individual I'll abbreviate this to B(P).

So for one of the Christians we have B(G).
For an atheist we have ¬B(G) and B(¬G).
For an agnostic we have ¬B(G) and ¬B(¬G).

The issue is that ¬B(P) is different from B(¬P). The former simply states the absence of a belief in proposition P, whereas the latter makes a more definite statement that the relevant agent believes the proposition is not true. They are not the same logically because one cannot move a negation through a modal operator without some axiom to allow it.

For someone's beliefs to be consistent one needs: if B(¬P) then ¬B(P). But the converse would do some damage to a description of belief using modal logic. Suppose I asked you if you believed whichever the most recently discovered Earth-like exoplanet found to be in the region about its star where liquid water can exist harbours life? I'm imagining that you'd say something along the lines of "I don't see why not, but how should I know?", there's no reason for you to believe there is life there and there's no reason for you to believe life is not there so you don't have any particular belief about that particular proposition.

However, you have stated that you are an atheist: B(ghost, ¬G). Which means you have a belief about God. As an agnostic I could consistently claim I do not have a belief that because all I say is ¬B(DT, G)&¬B(DT, ¬G).

As to my wider point, once acquainted with the notion of a God we tend to develop ideas about what such a being would be like and so I don't think it's really possible to claim not to have any beliefs about God.

@handyandy said
Do you think Adam and Eve were real people?

Yes

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'Knowledge' of something isn't a 'belief' of something. Perhaps that is where you are going wrong sir?

Putting God back on the table, I have 'knowledge' about the God figure a Christian has 'belief' in. I've studied the evidence and found it wanting. I am detached from such a belief.

Buying into any knowledge about something is belief. Suggesting God should be given credit for something or not, is without a doubt beliefs about God. You have studied evidence and found it wanting so you reject the reality of God. So you are not putting faith in God, that is still a belief about God, and its an important one that colors your world view as you look at all things that God is given credit for and deny it. If for example you looked at everything with an open mind you would think possible, but living a life that defines yourself as one who denies, that is the mindset you view it all.

@kellyjay said
Buying into any knowledge about something is belief. Suggesting God should be given credit for something or not, is without a doubt beliefs about God. You have studied evidence and found it wanting so you reject the reality of God. So you are not putting faith in God, that is still a belief about God, and its an important one that colors your world view as you look at all th ...[text shortened]... ble, but living a life that defines yourself as one who denies, that is the mindset you view it all.

To be clear Kelly, I do not reject the reality of God.

For me, there is 'no reality' to be rejected. What I reject is the idea of God put forward by other human beings. It's an important difference.