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.
Yeah, that’s incorrect- which you would know if you read your links.Actually only bloggers consider abiogenesis a separate event from the evolution of the cosmos.
Easy. The universe is self created. That is part of the nature of the universe.Can you produce simpler ones?
Then it’s also possible for the universe to have no cause. Otherwise you are engaging in a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.
I covered that one.Easy. The universe is self created. That is part of the nature of the universe.
You’ll have to elaborate on that. It reads like a non sequitur.That's not a scientific answer, and so special pleading.
No you did not. All of yours required some agency. In my example the universe has no agency.I covered that one.
Not at all so... there must be a first cause.Then it’s also possible for the universe to have no cause. Otherwise you are engaging in a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.
The first three explain the interconnections that they are studying.None of the papers you've listed conflate abiogenesis and biological evolution into one event. They all describe aspects of abiogenesis.
The reference to evolution, in the 6th paper listed, uses the word in its every day sense of 'change'. It is not a reference to biological evolution.
Scientists are very careful to separate abiogenesis from evolution since they are two separate processes. It is, for instance, possible to accept biological evolution without accepting the concept of abiogenesis. You should already understand this from time spent on this forum.
OB
Nope. I covered that.No you did not. All of yours required some agency. In my example the universe has no agency.
Why? If God does not need an external cause that means it possibly to exist without an external cause.Not at all so... there must be a first cause.
Can you point to the example that does not include ‘agency’?Nope.
-The simplest explanation is that God exists outside of time and time is a construct of His willpower.
-The second simplest explanation is that God is eternal and always existed throughout time.
-The third simplest observation is that because science requires a cause before an event
then we can conclude their must have been a first cause that would be "intention" or "Spirit".
-A fourth simple explanation is that matter is intelligent and matter formed itself into the Cosmos by it's own will or "Spirit".
One of the four. And we know that science requires "cause and effect" so avoiding that is Special Pleading.Can you point to the example that does not include ‘agency’?
Yeah, that’s incorrect- which you would know if you read your links.
They don’t conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Unless I’ve missed it in which case you will no doubt be able to quote the bit I have missed.
And yet all pulled together by research on them.The bizarre physics of the early universe; the hypothetical chemistry of abiogenesis; and the process of biological evolution all operate on quite different principals... at extremely different times and in different environments.
Then it’s also possible for the universe to have no cause. Otherwise you are engaging in a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.
Other than being the 4 simplest explanations, why would you resist that logic?
Can you produce simpler ones?
I am pretty much sure of the difference between the two. So please carry on your argumentThe problem we would all have with talking to you about this is that you obviously lack a basic understanding of what it's all about from a scientific viewpoint. I'm not trying to insult you, but it's very obvious from what you've written that you are not aware of the difference between the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang) and the development of life through evolution.
Not a problem until it can be scientifically proven by facts not theoriesThe problem lies in the difference in how creationists deal with 'Origins'. Creationists combine the beginning of the Universe and the creation of life into a single event as described in Genesis.
Well again the science you assume to be science is from atheistic perspective. The classification again can be wrong and there may be altogether different reason how everything started and how everything operates.A scientific explanation separates the beginning of the universe and the creation of life into three discrete events - the Big Bang ( setting up the Universe), followed billions of years later by abiogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) and then evolution (life evolving into a variety of forms).
This statement is very illogical and very unscientific. This is no different than one religion claiming to be right because it has something similar to the other religion.This is further confused by the totally inaccurate perception that scientific explanations for 'origins' are an atheist construct. Many Christians accept Big Bang and evolution, the means by which God built the Universe and life, as reasonable constructs. There are many Christian scientists who are comfortable with evolution. There are many Christian denominations which accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the diversity of life.
That depends on how much logic or how much atheism u show as a proof hereBasically @Godistruth1 you have a lot to learn before we can sensibly talk to you about all this stuff.
All of your examples require agency. Can you confirm the definition of agency you are using (in your own words, please).One of the four. And we know that science requires "cause and effect" so avoiding that is Special Pleading.
-The simplest explanation is that God exists outside of time and time is a construct of His willpower.
-The second simplest explanation is that God is eternal and always existed throughout time.
-The third simplest observation is that because science requires a cause before an event
then we can conclude their must have been a first cause that would be "intention" or "Spirit".
-A fourth simple explanation is that matter is intelligent and matter formed itself into the Cosmos by it's own will or "Spirit".
Can you quote the bits about abiogenesis being part of ToE?The first four are papers specifically linking factors together.
If an Atheist claims theory of evolution seems more logical to atheists thats fine. People who believe in God can see creationism as more logical. What is more logical is no doubt subjectiveThere is no single atheist position on this question.
Atheism is a position of non belief to the claim that some God or Gods exist.
As for the "organised" universe, I tend to go with the concept that a multi verse is possible and that universes that can support life exist within a narrow set of circumstances which we label as 'ordered'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?