Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

[JohnB445]

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

 

[AV1611VET]

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

The best we can do for them as far as giving them what they want on their terms is cause-and-effect for the existence of God.

Namely:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

 

[jacks]

Just a note: Not all scientists believe life formed on its own.

For those that do, what alternative do they have? If you rule out any sort of creative force all you are left with is chance. I don't believe there is any "undeniable proof or facts" to give them, just as they don't have proof that life formed on it's own. So what we are left with is a choice of what to believe. We are all free to make that choice.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just a note: Not all scientists believe life formed on its own.

For those that do, what alternative do they have? If you rule out any sort of creative force all you are left with is chance. I don't believe there is any "undeniable proof or facts" to give them, just as they don't have proof that life formed on it's own. So what we are left with is a choice of what to believe. We are all free to make that choice.

Hey, jacks!

 

[Hans Blaster]

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

Are you going to provide for discussion, or just tell us the things you don't agree with? (Theology is off topic here.)

 

[Larniavc]

How do we give them that?

You don’t. Just leave us alone? The scientific method is only able to test for testable things so it’s not relevant for matters of theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don’t. Just leave us alone? The scientific method is only able to test for testable things so it’s not relevant for matters of theology.

Correct.

Science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you going to provide for discussion, or just tell us the things you don't agree with? (Theology is off topic here.)

By all means.

Let's discuss it.

I can talk about nothing all day.

 

[essentialsaltes]

however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

That's a good question. You don't even need to provide undeniable proof, but for a scientific discussion, you will need to provide some evidence as a starting point.

 

[BCP1928]

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

Nothing that science has ever discovered, nothing that science could in principle ever discover, can disprove the existence of God or his authorship of our being. Why can't you be happy with that?

 

[Landon Caeli]

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

You can explore the concept that morphic resonance is an Act of the Holy Spirit. A "force" that exists like gravity, that is invisible, but guides the formation of matter from timeless energy into something material, and it's said to be testable, which makes it acceptable in a physical and life sciences debate.

Of course, scientific materialists will liken it to heresy, because they view scientific materialism and reductionism as the only acceptable methods of understanding... So be ready for that.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you rule out any sort of creative force all you are left with is chance.

But haven't you overlooked the possibility that chance itself is a creative force. Left to its own devices, what 'chance' can do, it inevitably will do. What you perceive as omniscience and omnipotence may simply be the hallmarks of persistence.

You want the 'creative force' to be some tangible agent to which you can ascribe all that's good, and righteous, and just, but perhaps there's no such being, and you've simply created one in order to explain our overarching sense of right and wrong... and humanity's inability to live up to it.

I agree, as creative forces go, chance is rather indifferent, but perhaps the secret to finding God is to first stop looking for Him where He's not.

 

[stevevw]

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

This is no better an explanation than what has been presented before and none every can explain the emergence of life. Or the emergence of anything from nothing and it does not matter how far you want to take the beginning back to.

THis is the fundemental issue that keeps coming up again and again and I think the fallacy of this explanation is being exposed more and more as we actually look deeper into the complexity and design of life.

Now we are at a point where we actually have to explain life. Not the inanimate world but the living and breathing life with agency and free will and conscious experiences of the beyond.

It cannot all be explained by non life creating life. Or combinations of inanimate objects somehow rubbing together to create life like some epiphenomena of consciousness.

This is completely an inadequate explanation and material science will never be able to account for life. Or existence for that matter. In fact I think the more we go on the more it will become aparent that there is something more alive or conscious in the very fabric of existence beyond what naturalism can possibly account for.

 

[BCP1928]

This is no better an explanation than what has been presented before and none every can explain the emergence of life. Or the emergence of anything from nothing and it does not matter how far you want to take the beginning back to.

THis is the fundemental issue that keeps coming up again and again and I think the fallacy of this explanation is being exposed more and more as we actually look deeper into the complexity and design of life.

Now we are at a point where we actually have to explain life. Not the inanimate world but the living and breathing life with agency and free will and conscious experiences of the beyond.

It cannot all be explained by non life creating life. Or combinations of inanimate objects somehow rubbing together to create life like some epiphenomena of consciousness.

This is completely an inadequate explanation and material science will never be able to account for life. Or existence for that matter. In fact I think the more we go on the more it will become aparent that there is something more alive or conscious in the very fabric of existence beyond what naturalism can possibly account for.

That may well be and science does not deny it or rule it out. You're just irked because they pretty much have already ruled out your version of the Christian God as a likely candidate.