Hence, as far as empiricism goes, its wiser to simply stick with what it can achieve, as opposed to belief
Bridging an incomplete empirical claim with belief for the sake of undercutting a belief in God seems to run contrary to a great atheistic argument.
What we know is that intelligence can only work with the existing laws of physics. That also apples to an Intelligent Designer.
It should be pretty clear. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowlege and skills. That might not be something that you want to ascribe to your Creator. You might want to think He is "above" something as mundane as learning.
Falsehood is not evidence of anything - except agenda, maybe.
The difference from a sufficient context being?
At the moment I am pointing out how you are stepping outside of the empirical process (in an attempt to overlay a type of cosmology that necessarily excludes God). I didn't introduce this to this thread. Nor did I demand that you rush in to defend it, once it was introduced.
Two dollars is sufficient for a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons. If one dollar is all I have, that is not sufficient.
I am doing no such thing. I am looking at all of the evidence we have. If you want to add evidence of God to the pile, feel free to do so. I'm guessing that your reluctance to do so is significant.
Then it seems there is an obvious broader context to purchasing coffee beyond having one dollar, even if one dollar is all one has.
You are doing quite a bit more than that. You are levelling claims beyond what the (empirical) evidence offers. You are also doing this with a specific agenda to push God out of the picture.
You can check out my discussions with JamesR to see where we are in that department.
?? The "intelligence" in the first case was a jar of gases and a spark gap (lightning.) That was to simulate early atmospheric conditions. Those experiments showed that you did not need intelligence to create complex molecules - just the conditions that existed when the Earth was young.
Your provincial "no earth = no life" as a sufficient context for granting abiogenesis centre stage.
Then I guess its just a coincidence that here you are defending an empirically indefensible notion of abiogenesis in a thread focused on discussing evidence of God.
Abiogenesis is empirically defensible. The attacks on it have all been defeated.
What are you talking about?
Yes, lightning bolts happen in nature all the time. The experiment used the same sort of energy and the same sort of chemicals to determine what happened back then. It could not, of course, happen today due to the effects of free oxygen on high temperature products.
Yes.
No.
