So if God, Working in His Mysterious Ways, made everything work just as if it was all entirely natural and no God was involved, why dispute the science that demonstrates that everything works just as if it was all entirely natural and no God was involved?
I think we run into problems where it becomes very difficult to describe phenomena. A Universe without space or time when the constancy and ubiquity of both concepts in inherent to the human experience... even though we know for a fact they are malleable.
Yes, it often comes down to a mathematical formulation that has no intuitive interpretation or visualization, e.g. quantum mechanics. But it's not nothing.
You may disagree about there being no scientific evidence for God, but you can prove that fact for yourself. Please answer the following question:
It is not my task to prove that it is not evidence for abiogenesis, it is your claim the burden is yours to provide evidence that it is.
OK lets give it a test. Review and refute the evidence for God on this site.
Science indicates that there was in fact a beginning.
But you claimed that there is scientific evidence for God. You just proved that you do not have any.
I provided evidence for the existence of God in post #109 feel free to refute anything, just provide footnotes and citations since all the evidence there also has footnotes and citations. I am waiting for your evidence that Miller goes anywhere near establishing a foundation for abiogenesis. what you say in your sig is not evidence, now is it?
That's way out of date - mainstream cosmology has moved on since then. We know that Einstein's equations provide an incomplete model and that quantum mechanics needs to be taken into account. Even Alan Guth himself now believes that the universe had no beginning. There is also some question now of what is meant by a beginning - the start of an entropic arrow of time doesn't mean the universe is not temporally infinite - there may be many such points along the time axis, in both directions, each of which appears like a beginning to any observers that are produced.
That's not how it works - you're expected to defend the arguments you make. Pick your favourite argument from whatever source and we'll see how it stacks up and whether you can defend it.
Do have evidence that supports your contention that the information is out of date, rendering your personal opinion is not evidence.
and who decides how it works? Refute what you can, provide your evidence and we will see how it stacks up.
Yes, there is evidence.
You seem to think that you are in control of this discussion, not so.
When it comes to my involvement, I decide how it works. This is a science forum for discussing, debating, and arguing scientific ideas. We can toss books, articles, videos, and courses back and forth, demanding the contents be refuted, until the cows come home, but that's not discussing, debating, or arguing. I'm not going to spend a week refuting some book, I want to discuss, argue, and debate with someone who understands what they're talking about.
