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

[stevevw]

Please use a question mark (?) at the end of your questions.


The fact that there is no way to actually study God or prayer or miracles or anything connect to the supernatural.

So how does one dispute that life did not form on its own ?

No, it just proves that they can't back up their claims with science and thus scientifically their claims can be discarded as religious claims only.

Does this then mean that science has proven its case ultimately ?. That life formed on its own naturalistically ?

And that's not really a problem for anyone except for those who continuously want to claim that there is scientific evidence for the supernatural, since there isn't. Metaphysics don't matter a damn when there is no actual conceivable evidence to back up your claims, only claims in of themselves.

Except theres no evidence that life formed on its own either and to claim such is a metaphysical belief claim and not a scientific one. The same thing but in reverse.

And again? Please use a question mark (?) at the end of your questions.

?

 

[stevevw]

Science doesn't claim that, Bozo. Atheist scientists claim it as a private metaphysical opinion; science has no opinion on the matter.

What do you mean the same ones mentioned in the OP. The scientists that claimed life formed on its own through naturalistic causes and not God. How do we address that if we disagree with these scientists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So how does one dispute that life did not form on its own ?

Quite easily: by saying that there's no scientific evidence for a creator. Simple as.

Does this then mean that science has proven its case ultimately ?. That life formed on its own naturalistically ?

No.

Except theres no evidence that life formed on its own either and to claim such is a metaphysical belief claim and not a scientific one. The same thing but in reverse.

Stop using the word metaphysical, you clearly do not know what it means and are using it incorrectly.

As I said, there is no evidence for or against life forming on its own or by a creator. BUT since science only deals with the naturalistic, then we can only look at the naturalistic, the material, the physical.

?

You were asking questions and ending them with periods/full stops which makes things incredibly confusing, and your punctuation is still rubbish even know. A period/full stop does not follow a question mark and you do not leave a space after the last word in a sentence you want to use a question mark in.
How is this hard for you to understand, I seriously have to ask? Is English your first/native language or not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What do you mean the same ones mentioned in the OP. The scientists that claimed life formed on its own through naturalistic causes and not God. How do we address that if we disagree with these scientists.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

 

[stevevw]

No problem, because science doesn't, cannot, rule out God's creative involvement in our origin.

But that doesn't explain how one argues the case for Gods creation rather than life forming on its own. The OP says they disagree with the scientists beliefs that life formed on its own and says God was involved.

It seems to me this is a debate on this. So how can those who disagree even argue their case lol. Can they cite the fact that science cannot rule this out so no matter what science shows its still possible. If so can they then argue their case.

It is bunk, both from a scientific and a theological point of view.

Ok so that leaves nothing lol. There is nothing anyone who disagrees with the scientists that life formed on its own that they can say on this thread. In fact even trying to use science as you say would be regarded as bunk. So anyone who disagrees cannot even use science. Their options have been reduced to nothing lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is the thing from my perspective and I would say from other Christians or those who are open to something beyond the material world.

Irrelevant.

It directly relates to the idea that life did not form on its own.

Sure dude.

The OP mentions that they don't believe life formed on its own as scientists claim. What does that mean. Surely this implies a creator. Therefore a soul and life beyond the material world.

A creator does not imply a soul or a "beyond", ergo, it is not relevant to this thread.

The same metaphysics that support the idea that life was created and not the result of physical naturalism. Is the same metaphysics as there being a soul or conscious self that lives on. Created beings that will go on beyond the material world.

The OP poses a disagreement and claim about metaphysics. Whether life came about on its own through materialism with no creator required. Or there was a creator as life is not able to come about without a creator involved.

quit making every thread about your favorite stalking horses.

 

[stevevw]

Quite easily: by saying that there's no scientific evidence for a creator. Simple as.

Yes I have already acknowledged this. I am saying what now? Is that it ? lol. What does this mean ". Is it cased clased and ultimately we can say theres no evidence for a creator God fundementally or ontologically:/ I've never written so many ? in me life.

No.

Ok so this is where I think it gets a little murky. So if this does not ultimately mean life was not created ? Then why when someone disagrees you say there is no evidence?. If your using science to defeat those who disagree and if science does not ultimately prove the case. Then how can you use science to defeat those who disagree ? lol.

Are you saying it only counts while on this particular thread ? That while on this thread we must agree with the science but not ultimately agree with it as far as proving there is no creator God ?

Stop using the word metaphysical, you clearly do not know what it means and are using it incorrectly.

You were just speaking metaphysically above when you said that science does not ultimately prove there is no creator God. I can't help it as it naturally comes out of the topic lol. Once again its asking a metaphysical question. Is life created or can it create itself ?

As I said, there is no evidence for or against life forming on its own or by a creator. BUT since science only deals with the naturalistic, then we can only look at the naturalistic, the material, the physical.

Can you see how this limits such a question ? Its more or less saying the only way we can determine if life formed itself or not is by naturalistic science.

The problem is we are not talking about evolution even. But ontologically about whether life can create itself without any help from a creator or outside guidence.

You were asking questions and ending them with periods/full stops which makes things incredibly confusing, and your punctuation is still rubbish even know.

Lol I did not put the ? there because I did not know lol. I just put it there for fun. Now I am really getting into trouble.

A period/full stop does not follow a question mark and you do not leave a space after the last word in a sentence you want to use a question mark in.
How is this hard for you to understand, I seriously have to ask? Is English your first/native language or not?

I am shocking at grammar. Always was at school. I was a bit behind in that regard.

 

[BCP1928]

But that doesn't explain how one argues the case for Gods creation rather than life forming on its own. The OP says they disagree with the scientists beliefs that life formed on its own and says God was involved.

One argues the case that science takes no position on the existence of God, one way or the other, even though individual scientists do.

It seems to me this is a debate on this. So how can those who disagree even argue their case lol. Can they cite the fact that science cannot rule this out so no matter what science shows its still possible. If so can they then argue their case.

Ok so that leaves nothing lol. There is nothing anyone who disagrees with the scientists that life formed on its own that they can say on this thread. In fact even trying to use science as you say would be regarded as bunk. So anyone who disagrees cannot even use science. Their options have been reduced to nothing lol.

It's interesting that you think faith in God is nothing.

 

[stevevw]

quit making every thread about your favorite stalking horses.

Ok well I canot get into a thread about science that is going to support itself and not allow any other evidence. Like I said if we cannot even use science because its classed as bunk in trying to prove God and we can use testimony or anything else but naturalistic science. Then I concede lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I acknowledged that when it comes to proving that God created life theres no scientific test that can prove that.

Then it is off topic on this science sub-forum.

The evidence I was talking about isn't something you can put in a test tube and test it. Its testimonial. Its imparted by the spirit of God. Though the bible does say that all humans have this knowledge in their hearts of the invisible qualities seen in the things that God has made.

Which is not how science works.

But apart from that what about the logical arguements such as the Cosmological argument (universe needs a first cause), Teleological/Design arguement (universe shows intelligent design), Ontological arguement (God as a perfect being logically must exist), Moral argument (objective morality requires a divine lawgiver), and Religious Experience arguement (personal encounters with the divine), with historical figures like Aquinas and Anselm developing key versions, all aiming to provide rational or experiential evidence for a higher power.

Are you saying none of these arguements or evidence can be used. The only acceptable evidence is scientific evidence based on naturalism. Is that right ?

Those are philosophical arguments. They have nothing to do with science.

Ok so maybe its in the wrong thread as this is definitely a philsophical question. The OP says they don't believe what scientists claim that life formed on its own. Do we not allow for people to argue why life did not form on its own.

If that's what you want to do, argue against abiogenesis, but gods or the lack thereof are irrelevant to the question.

 

[stevevw]

One argues the case that science takes no position on the existence of God, one way or the other, even though individual scientists do.

Thats what I was doing but was told I can't as its not science lol. That is philsophy lol. I am really confused now.

It's interesting that you think faith in God is nothing.

I was literally just told by others we can't use faith as evidence. As something for evidence. I know faith is everything. But that means nothing on this thread.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok well I canot get into a thread about science that is going to support itself and not allow any other evidence. Like I said if we cannot even use science because its classed as bunk in trying to prove God and we can use testimony or anything else but naturalistic science. Then I concede lol.

Neither creationism nor ID are actually science, so I don't know what you are complaining about. If you happen to meet any scientists who want to use science to disprove the existence of God all you have to do is explain to them that their own institutional philosophy of science rules it out. Most scientists know this already, anyway, so you shouldn't have very much trouble.

 

[BCP1928]

Thats what I was doing but was told I can't as its not science lol. That is philsophy lol. I am really confused now.

I was literally just told by others we can't use faith as evidence. As something for evidence. I know faith is everything. But that means nothing on this thread.

I thought you were trying to defend against scientists trying to use science to disprove the existence of God? You don't have to prove the existence of God in order to do that, you only have to point out that science is unable to disprove it.

 

[stevevw]

Then it is off topic on this science sub-forum.

So how does one disagree with life forming on its own.

Which is not how science works.

Yes I know and thats why I have nothing for proving life was created.

Those are philosophical arguments. They have nothing to do with science.

Do you think the OP poses a philosophical question.

If that's what you want to do, argue against abiogenesis, but gods or the lack thereof are irrelevant to the question.

But did not you just say argueing for Intelligent design is bunk. Or are you saying we can only create a negative arguement against abiogenesis.

Thats why I thought the only real way to disagree if we have to keep it to science would be ID or something along the lines of showing inherent design in nature ect. Teleology in nature or something like that. But that will be dismissed as bunk.

I know how these goes. I think the best way is to concede that at least for this thread there is no way to prove either way. Even if I concede it will still not prove the case. So I cannot see the sense. It will be great for those who believe life formed itself though.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok well I canot get into a thread about science that is going to support itself and not allow any other evidence. Like I said if we cannot even use science because its classed as bunk in trying to prove God and we can use testimony or anything else but naturalistic science.

Use scientific evidence or don't post in the science section. It's not a hard concept.

Then I concede lol.

Sure you do, sure you do. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[stevevw]

Neither creationism nor ID are actually science, so I don't know what you are complaining about. If you happen to meet any scientists who want to use science to disprove the existence of God all you have to do is explain to them that their own institutional philosophy of science rules it out. Most scientists know this already, anyway, so you shouldn't have very much trouble.

Then anyone who disagrees with the science would have to concede at least for this thread. I cannot see any way they can have any scientific evidence. Even if they did it is not really science.

 

[stevevw]

Use scientific evidence or don't post in the science section. It's not a hard concept.

You just said we can't use scientific evidence as its bunk if it tries to show life was created. I don't think theres much choice.

Sure you do, sure you do. I'll believe it when I see it.

No I have already conceded if this is the case. I am just making sure theres no other way around it that allows those who disagree to participate. If using science to show life did not form on its own is classed as bunk. Then we can't even use the science. I cannot see a way around it.

Do you have any suggestions. What about behavioural sciences.

I think I will see if anyone else disagrees and how they approach this.

 

[BCP1928]

So how does one disagree with life forming on its own.

By disagreeing with it. Period. Science cannot gainsay it.

Yes I know and thats why I have nothing for proving life was created.

Why do you need proof? Is not faith enough for you? Perhaps you need prayer more than proof.

Do you think the OP poses a philosophical question.

But did not you just say argueing for Intelligent design is bunk. Or are you saying we can only create a negative arguement against abiogenesis.

Intelligent Design is bunk on it's own merits and nothing but a non-scientific attempt to patch over the failure if biblical creationism.

Thats why I thought the only real way to disagree if we have to keep it to science would be ID or something along the lines of showing inherent design in nature ect. Teleology in nature or something like that. But that will be dismissed as bunk.

That's part of the problem, thinking that way about teleology. Science will never find it amongst the natural causes it studies.

I know how these goes. I think the best way is to concede that at least for this thread there is no way to prove either way. Even if I concede it will still not prove the case. So I cannot see the sense. It will be great for those who believe life formed itself though.

 

[BCP1928]

Then anyone who disagrees with the science would have to concede at least for this thread. I cannot see any way they can have any scientific evidence. Even if they did it is not really science.

You don't need scientific evidence. All you need to do is to show them that by the epistemilogical basis of the scientific method which they have accepted it is impossible for them to deny the existence of God and his authorship of our being.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So how does one disagree with life forming on its own.

It should be that hard. There isn't definitive scientific proof of life forming on its own. Look around you can find it, but it's not my role to argue for you.

Yes I know and thats why I have nothing for proving life was created.

Then maybe you need to lay back until you find some evidence. It happens.

Do you think the OP poses a philosophical question.

Philosophy, not really. The OP is a series of strawmen against the scientific ideas that exist on OOL followed by a few theological claims. If that's "philosophy" then that field is in way worse shape than even I think.

But did not you just say argueing for Intelligent design is bunk. Or are you saying we can only create a negative arguement against abiogenesis.

Thats why I thought the only real way to disagree if we have to keep it to science would be ID or something along the lines of showing inherent design in nature ect. Teleology in nature or something like that. But that will be dismissed as bunk.

ID, the nonsense pushed by the DI, is a known pseudoscience and the DI is not and never has been a scientific organization, but instead the DI and ID have always been an ideological project masquerading as science. This doesn't mean that there can't be a scientific alternative or "creation" model, but it sure is not the fraud of ID/DI.

I know how these goes. I think the best way is to concede that at least for this thread there is no way to prove either way. Even if I concede it will still not prove the case. So I cannot see the sense. It will be great for those who believe life formed itself though.

The only question is if will you continue.