God Is a Question, Not an Answer

[Radrook]

No, it isn't. You are claiming that your position uses observations as support for the origin of life. So what is it?

Nothing that you would consider sufficient to change your mind.

It is a common claim made by creationists, but I have yet to see a single creationist back it with actual evidence. Please show us that abiogenesis can not happen as you claim.

If you prefer to believe that what is never observed to happen ion nature nor can be forced to happen in a lab actual MUST happen then be my guest.

400 years ago, the atom idea had no proof. Not having evidence is not the same as something be false.

If you have no proof then why are you so keen in defending it?

 

[Radrook]

Where have you stated your case for the origin of life?

Since I don't consider that you are able to be convinced by anything that I might say, your request comes across as an invitation to an exercise in futility. So I guess we simply disagree on the matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing that you would consider sufficient to change your mind.

That's because you know it isn't sufficient.

If you prefer to believe that what is never observed to happen ion nature nor can be forced to happen in a lab actual MUST happen then be my guest.

You are describing your position, not mine.

If you have no proof then why are you so keen in defending it?

Where did I defend it? I don't know how life started. That's my position. What is your position?

 

[Radrook]

That's because you know it isn't sufficient.

Not sufficient in your specific case not in every case.

You are describing your position, not mine.

No comparison whatsoever. I have repeated observable pattern of life coming only from prior life to base my inference on. There are also other patterns involving how mind reveals itself. In contrast, there is no observable pattern available for an abiogenesis inference which you seem to believe a more reasonable assumption but never seem able to explain why. Instead you simply claim not to see.

Nothing new actually:

Acts 28:26

"'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."

Where did I defend it? I don't know how life started. That's my position. What is your position?

Your vehement opposition to anything that even remotely smacks of a creator strongly indicates it.
My position? I believe in an ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not sufficient in your specific case not in every case.

It could all be settled by you presenting it.

No comparison whatsoever. I have repeated observable pattern of life coming only from prior life to base my inference on.

That doesn't answer where life came from to begin with.

Where do you think the first life came from?

In contrast, there is no observable pattern available for an abiogenesis inference which you seem to believe a more reasonable assumption but never seem able to explain why. Instead you simply claim not to see.

I think abiogenesis is a better area for research because you can actually research it. The patterns they are researching are complex biomolecules that form from simple molecules, and those are observed in the lab.

What is not observed in the lab is a deity creating life, which is apparently what you believe.

Nothing new actually:

Acts 28:26
"'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."

That's what any religious text would say for a religion that really doesn't make sense. Built in excuses.

Your vehement opposition to anything that even remotely smacks of a creator strongly indicates it.

Funny how you view requests for evidence as "opposition". Says a lot, really.

 

[Cimorene]

I wholeheartedly disagree, Doubt and worry in general is not a good thing. I want to be free from doubt and worry, that is what following Jesus allows. Being in a relationship where you have to constantly worry and doubt if someone loves you is terrible and can drive anyone crazy.

Where in the article does it say that people feel that way? Idk that having some doubt about religious stuff makes you into a basketcase constantly worrying & doubting whether God loves you.

 

[chapmic]

Where in the article does it say that people feel that way? Idk that having some doubt about religious stuff makes you into a basketcase constantly worrying & doubting whether God loves you.

Doubt and faith are alike, just like faith can start out small and can grow so can doubt. I have seen believers get frustrated about not being able to answer questions about Biblical matters and then start to lose their faith because they can't fully comprehend why something happened. But that is the joy of having faith, you may not be able to understand why everything happened the way it did but you can feel God's presence and his love. It's like a healthy parent child relationship, I still don't understand all the reasons why my parents did what they did when they were raising me, but I did feel their presence and was comforted by their love. When you start doubting your companion's love is when problems start forming in the relationship.

 

[Radrook]

It could all be settled by you presenting it.

The only thing that will settle is your need to demonstrate that you disagree.

That doesn't answer where life came from to begin with.

Where do you think the first life came from?

That objection doesn't prove that my inference is an illogical one.
What I would like to know is what YOUR inference is based on.

I think abiogenesis is a better area for research because you can actually research it. The patterns they are researching are complex biomolecules that form from simple molecules, and those are observed in the lab.

That doesn't prove that you aren't being illogical via drawing inferences without a basis.

What is not observed in the lab is a deity creating life, which is apparently what you believe.

I didn't introduce a deity into the equation. You did.

That's what any religious text would say for a religion that really doesn't make sense. Built in excuses.

It doesn't make sense because you don't understand it. I have nothing to excuse myself about.

Funny how you view requests for evidence as "opposition". Says a lot, really.

I never said that a mere request for evidence constitutes opposition.

 

[Cimorene]

Doubt and faith are alike, just like faith can start out small and can grow so can doubt. I have seen believers get frustrated about not being able to answer questions about Biblical matters and then start to lose their faith because they can't fully comprehend why something happened. But that is the joy of having faith, you may not be able to understand why everything happened the way it did but you can feel God's presence and his love. It's like a healthy parent child relationship, I still don't understand all the reasons why my parents did what they did when they were raising me, but I did feel their presence and was comforted by their love. When you start doubting your companion's love is when problems start forming in the relationship.

Jw. Did you read the article?

 

[Loudmouth]

The only thing that will settle is your need to demonstrate that you disagree.

Then we can conclude that you don't have any evidence.

That objection doesn't prove that my inference is an illogical one.
What I would like to know is what YOUR inference is based on.

Still waiting for you to tell us how you think the first life originated.

You claimed that theists are drawing from observations for the origin of the first life, so let's see those observations. Or were you mistaken in this claim?

I didn't introduce a deity into the equation. You did.

You introduced a deity when you compared theists and atheists.

It doesn't make sense because you don't understand it. I have nothing to excuse myself about.

The fact that you can't make it understandable is what you are trying to excuse. Bare assertions that something is understandable in no way makes something understandable.

I never said that a mere request for evidence constitutes opposition.

What you are calling opposition is people asking you for evidence.

 

[chapmic]

Jw. Did you read the article?

Yes, three times. The author comes across as a person with an Agnostic belief bragging that he is wiser than Christians and Athiests because he has doubts about God. And in his mind, he is more "reasonable" and "honest" in conversations about God because he is "unbiased."
Here is his quote from the article

People who claim certainty about God worry me, both those who believe and those who don’t believe. They do not really listen to the other side of conversations, and they are too ready to impose their views on others. It is impossible to be certain about God.

The fact is, it is not impossible to be certain about God existence, one may not understand the reasons why things are the way they are but people can still be certain about God's existence. Also I don't like the implication that one can not have a civil intellectual conversation because that person is certain about their belief or unbelief. His article comes across as arrogant to me.

 

[Cimorene]

Yes, three times. The author comes across as a person with an Agnostic belief bragging that he is wiser than Christians and Athiests because he has doubts about God. And in his mind, he is more "reasonable" and "honest" in conversations about God because he is "unbiased."
Here is his quote from the article

People who claim certainty about God worry me, both those who believe and those who don’t believe. They do not really listen to the other side of conversations, and they are too ready to impose their views on others. It is impossible to be certain about God.

The fact is, it is not impossible to be certain about God existence, one may not understand the reasons why things are the way they are but people can still be certain about God's existence. Also I don't like the implication that one can not have a civil intellectual conversation because that person is certain about their belief or unbelief. His article comes across as arrogant to me.

That's not how it came across to me at all tbh. Guess everybody takes way different things from the same thing. Idk I'm new to all this but I've def. seen how there are a ton of people totally unwilling to listen to listen to other beliefs that aren't like theirs & how they'll impose their views on others. That's what happens all over this forum every day from what I've seen so far tbh.

 

[ScottA]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

I'm curious for your thoughts.

Edit - I'm deleting the question I'd originally asked in this post because I don't want people to focus on that and not read the article in its entirety for context.

It's the same old, age old, story...God is a question for those who do not "know." But the elephant in the room that is always dismissed, is the millions...who do indeed know.

It's like this:

It is as if we are all born into a large room, and no one has ever seen or been out of the room...so it is assumed that no one could know what is outside, and the next step is to assume then, that we are all equal and free to believe what we want. So much for assumptions. What is missing in that scenario, is that even if no one has seen or been outside...it is possible that the information could conceivably come in from the outside - and that...is the biblical story. People were, and are, visited from the outside. I am one...and I do have "faith", but not in the unknown. What I "know", I do not "believe", but I "know." And there are millions of us.

 

[chapmic]

That's not how it came across to me at all tbh. Guess everybody takes way different things from the same thing. Idk I'm new to all this but I've def. seen how there are a ton of people totally unwilling to listen to listen to other beliefs that aren't like theirs & how they'll impose their views on others. That's what happens all over this forum every day from what I've seen so far tbh.

You are right, arguments do happen on this forum but that doesn't mean a civil debate is not possible either. As a Christian we are supposed to share our beliefs in a genuine cordial manner. The Bible uses the word "witness" which is a better way of saying that you are explaining your personal experience with God. It is not imposing if you are telling others your personal testimony, people can choose to read my posts and like it or not like it, no harm no foul, I am just glad I can share. I read people who have different faiths and beliefs posts on here too, depending on the topic I disagree with them but I don't take it personally and I am able to have a healthy discussion about it without doubting the existence of God.

 

[Cimorene]

You are right, arguments do happen on this forum but that doesn't mean a civil debate is not possible either. As a Christian we are supposed to share our beliefs in a genuine cordial manner. The Bible uses the word "witness" which is a better way of saying that you are explaining your personal experience with God. It is not imposing if you are telling others your personal testimony, people can choose to read my posts and like it or not like it, no harm no foul, I am just glad I can share. I read people who have different faiths and beliefs posts on here too, depending on the topic I disagree with them but I don't take it personally and I am able to have a healthy discussion about it without doubting the existence of God.

I know civil debate is possible. I just see WAY less of it.