evolution question

[Loudmouth]

If he did, would you believe him?

But he didn't see God create life in those experiments. Does this disprove the claim that God created life?

If both of us start an experiment where we let sterile broth set in a flask for a few weeks and no life appears, does this disprove the claim that God created life?

 

[Chriliman]

But he didn't see God create life in those experiments. Does this disprove the claim that God created life?

If both of us start an experiment where we let sterile broth set in a flask for a few weeks and no life appears, does this disprove the claim that God created life?

God doesn't claim to use sterile broth to create life. I don't think your question is logical.

Why would God create life in that sterile broth when he had already created life that made that experiment possible in the first place?

 

[Loudmouth]

God doesn't claim to use sterile broth to create life. I don't think your question is logical.

Scientists who work in the field of abiogenesis do not claim that life will spontaneously emerge from the broth that Pasteur used, and they certainly don't claim that you would see fully evolved bacteria in just a few weeks.

Why would God create life in that sterile broth when he had already created life that made that experiment possible in the first place?

If there is no proof that God created life, why think it is true?

 

[Chriliman]

But he didn't see God create life in those experiments. Does this disprove the claim that God created life?

If both of us start an experiment where we let sterile broth set in a flask for a few weeks and no life appears, does this disprove the claim that God created life?

Also, if God would have spontaneously created life in that broth then he would have made a mistake because we humans would have observed that as proving abiogenesis and thus disproving God. God's a genius, he wouldn't make such a silly mistake.

 

[Chriliman]

Scientists who work in the field of abiogenesis do not claim that life will spontaneously emerge from the broth that Pasteur used, and they certainly don't claim that you would see fully evolved bacteria in just a few weeks.



If there is no proof that God created life, why think it is true?

Because of explanatory power. Abiogenesis has not been proven, yet it could explain how life came to be, well so can God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because of explanatory power. Abiogenesis has not been proven, yet it could explain how life came to be, well so can God.

If you were a scientist, which do you think would offer the best chance of being amenable to scientific research?

 

[Chriliman]

If you were a scientist, which do you think would offer the best chance of being amenable to scientific research?

Ha, depends who you ask.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ha, depends who you ask.

How would you go about designing scientific experiments to determine if God created life?

 

[Michael]

Also, if God would have spontaneously created life in that broth then he would have made a mistake because we humans would have observed that as proving abiogenesis and thus disproving God. God's a genius, he wouldn't make such a silly mistake.

FYI, for the record, Pantheism and Panenthiesm demonstrate that even if abiogenesis is demonstrated to be true, it still wouldn't "disprove God" as you seem to imagine. It would simply demonstrate that God *is natural*, not "supernatural" as you seem to assume.

 

[Michael]

Because of explanatory power. Abiogenesis has not been proven, yet it could explain how life came to be, well so can God.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.

 

[Chriliman]

How would you go about designing scientific experiments to determine if God created life?

I wouldn't. I would try to determine which God made the most sense and attempt to ask him directly in whatever way I know how. It's called prayer.

 

[Loudmouth]

I wouldn't. I would try to determine which God made the most sense and attempt to ask him directly in whatever way I know how. It's called prayer.

Make sure you get a recording when you do get an answer so you can play it here.

 

[Chriliman]

FYI, for the record, Pantheism and Panenthiesm demonstrate that even if abiogenesis is demonstrated to be true, it still wouldn't "disprove God" as you seem to imagine. It would simply demonstrate that God *is natural*, not "supernatural" as you seem to assume.

I would think that if abiogenesis was observable and demonstrable as true then the scientific consensus would be that God is not needed to create life because life spontaneously emerged from these specific conditions and here's the proof. It would literally kill God. So if God does exist then this proof of abiogenesis will never be found.

 

[Chriliman]

Make sure you get a recording when you do get an answer so you can play it here.

I'm sure you'd believe a recording wouldn't you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would think that if abiogenesis was observable and demonstrable as true then the scientific consensus would be that God is not needed to create life because life spontaneously emerged from these specific conditions and here's the proof. It would literally kill God. So if God does exist then this proof of abiogenesis will never be found.

The same could be said for almost all of the other discoveries made by science. If you make the choice of pitting God against nature, it seems like a losing proposition to me and one that doesn't need to be made. It's a bit like saying that if gravity does exist then God is no longer needed to move the planets about the Sun which would literally kill God. Doesn't make much sense. I don't see why God can't create a universe that is capable of producing life all on its own just as the same universe is capable of producing planetary orbits all on its own.

But then again, I'm just an atheist, so what do I know.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sure you'd believe a recording wouldn't you.

It would certainly carry more weight than claims about voices in one's head.

 

[Michael]

I would think that if abiogenesis was observable and demonstrable as true then the scientific consensus would be that God is not needed to create life because life spontaneously emerged from these specific conditions and here's the proof.

It may only be possible for life to form "naturally" via the process of abiogenesis because God is the "natural universe", God sustains the natural universe, and the universe itself is alive. Awareness may simply be an intrinsic part of nature.

It would literally kill God.

That's actually not the case because abiogenesis would actually support the concept and theory of Panetheism. About the only only type of "God" that abiogenesis theory might "kill" is a "supernatural" concept of God. The concept of God *as nature* (Pantheism/Panetheism) could not ever and would not ever be falsified by abiogenesis.

So if God does exist then this proof of abiogenesis will never be found.

It would be more correct to suggest that if a *supernatural* form of God exists, and he created life in a supernatural manner, then evidence of abiogenesis probably won't be found. Unfortunately a lack of support from abiogenesis isn't actually support for theism, nor is evidence of abiogenesis actually a direct threat to theism in general.

 

[Michael]

I don't see why God can't create a universe that is capable of producing life all on its own just as the same universe is capable of producing planetary orbits all on its own.

But then again, I'm just an atheist, so what do I know.

That's a good point too.

 

[Chriliman]

It may only be possible for life to form "naturally" via the process of abiogenesis because God is the "natural universe", God sustains the natural universe, and the universe itself is alive. Awareness may simply be an intrinsic part of nature.



That's actually not the case because abiogenesis would actually support the concept and theory of Panetheism. About the only only type of "God" that abiogenesis theory might "kill" is a "supernatural" concept of God. The concept of God *as nature* (Pantheism/Panetheism) could not ever and would not ever be falsified by abiogenesis.



It would be more correct to suggest that if a *supernatural* form of God exists, and he created life in a supernatural manner, then evidence of abiogenesis probably won't be found. Unfortunately a lack of support from abiogenesis isn't actually support for theism, nor is evidence of abiogenesis actually a direct threat to theism in general.

I believe God is infinite and eternal and that he created everything we observe in our reality including ourselves. This would mean God himself is beyond our reality, but also able to effect our reality.

So I suppose observable direct proof of abiogenesis would be an effect on our reality, but I don't understand why God would want to show us how life spontaneously emerged from non-life. It seems contradictory to His purpose of wanting to be praised for creating life.

He created life, it wasn't randomly spontaneous, it was planned and created for a purpose.

That's what I believe anyway.

 

[Chriliman]

The same could be said for almost all of the other discoveries made by science. If you make the choice of pitting God against nature, it seems like a losing proposition to me and one that doesn't need to be made. It's a bit like saying that if gravity does exist then God is no longer needed to move the planets about the Sun which would literally kill God. Doesn't make much sense. I don't see why God can't create a universe that is capable of producing life all on its own just as the same universe is capable of producing planetary orbits all on its own.

But then again, I'm just an atheist, so what do I know.

Yes, God established the laws of nature for a purpose. He also created life for a purpose. The reason he created life is so he could be praised for accomplishing his plan of eternal life for his creation. What better purpose is there for a God? None that we can imagine in our current states of being.

Anyhow, I sense this going off topic.