Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I didn't.
I didn't say all scientific arguments against abiogenesis were bunk. I said ID was bunk propagated by liars.
Behavioral sciences aren't relevant to the origin of life or the next billion years or so.
Which Jesus repeatedly and patiently explained to people who didn't get it.
Yes it can. Its happening on this thread when people ask for evidence. Then when none can be shown to their satification end of story. May as well concede.
No I believe. Its convincing those who disagree on this thread lol.
Therefore theres nothing anyone can say who disagrees with life being able to form on its own. If we have scientific evidence then it would convince non believers. But it doesn't work that way.
Therefore if its truth, if life does have purpose and was created we can off no scientific evidence. We may as well concede on this thread that there is no scientific evidence.
Evidence of what? Are you trying to prove the existence of God?
Whether life has a purpose or not is irrelevant to this discussion. In any case, you won't discover it with scientific techniques. Teleology is a metaphysical discipline, not a scientific one.
No they don't, because they can't demonstrate it with evidence.
But if theres no scientific evidence then end of story. No sense trying.
So therefore people cannot use or demand any scientific evidence that verifies life formed itself. Because even if they do we still don't know.
Then why use scientific evidence to dispute a persons religious belief that life did not form on its own. Is that not what the thread is about. The OP states they believe life was created by God and disagrees. Those who claim life formed on its own will dispute the religious claims with science. Will demand scientific evidence and when its not provided claim there is no evidence and are wrong.
Ok so in failing what does that mean if they will never be proven wrong by the science. What if they don't even use science and still disagree. Where does that leave the person who showed the religious person has no evidence. Does that just prove them wrong that they had no evidence. Or prove that they were wrong about life being created and not formed on its own.
But we can't. Thats the problem lol. Those who believe life was created and not formed. Who agree with the OP have no way of using science to prove their case. They may as well conede. Because any use of science will be deemed bunk automatically as though its ID or creationism.
That is exactly metaphysics. Your now stepping beyond science itself and making a statement about reality itself. That science can only measure one part of reality which is naturalistic.
Therefore this counts out those who disagree with the idea that life formed on its own naturalistically. We have no way of disputing this. If we use the naturalistic worldview then we are being hypocrites and using bunk because the idea that life was created cannot be measured in naturalistic terms.
But does not a religious belief bring in the metaphysics considering that the religious person believes metaphysically that life did not form on its own naturalistically. Naturalism is one metaphysics. Its based on the physical or matter being reality.
Ok I agree. But then how does that determine whether life came about by itself.
Wheres your sense of humour.
lol
No, only what the OP says. That life did not come about on its own and God was involved.
It is if life was created and did not form on its own.
Thats right and thats why I am saying it is useless to try and do so. So those who disagree will have to concede.
Then whats the use of this thread lol.
Therefore I may as well concede. There is no way this thread can establish any truth on this no matter the science of naturalism.
So you don't understand what I am saying. I am just making sure you understand what I am pointing out and whether you agree or not.
But its even before this. Before later evolution from sea to land. This is 'abiogenesis'. The scientific theory that life on Earth originated from nonliving organic matter through natural processes. Life from non-life.
I understood this. I was clarifying whether you realised the implications lol. That we may as well not argue over this as neither of us will ever be able to prove our case. It more or less makes the thread redundant lol.
The OP proposed a hypothetical situation based on a gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and the epistemological basis of science. The bottom line is that if anybody tells you that science can disprove the existence of God or his authorship of our being, you can tell him to hop it,
Why not? It doesn't conflict with or change the science any. You can also believe that everything has a divine cause in addition to it's natural causes. Philosophers and theologians have written extensively on the subject starting all the way back with Aristotle. It appears to still be something of a mystery to conservative Christians, who have all but abandoned formal theology in favor of amateur Bible study.
Nothing in science denies or even can deny the Kingdom of God. It's just beyond the reach of science, which can only consider the material universe.
