How to prove God exists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Biogenesis.

First, biogenesis isn't really a law.
It just describes the idea that life produces other life through the act of reproduction.

Nothing about that idea excludes abiogenesis: the development of life from non-living material. Or as Krauss likes to say it "when chemistry turned into biology".

 

[Radrook]

First, biogenesis isn't really a law.
It just describes the idea that life produces other life through the act of reproduction.

Nothing about that idea excludes abiogenesis: the development of life from non-living material. Or as Krauss likes to say it "when chemistry turned into biology".

The problem is that the abiogenesis idea has absolutely no basis in observable reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that the abiogenesis idea has absolutely no basis in observable reality.

That is simply false.

Nothing about the chemistry of life is in defiance of the laws of physics or chemistry for example.

The carbon-based life on this planet is even build up from the most commonly available elements in the universe. We aren't even made of "rare" or "extra-ordinary" stuff.

We even find organic compounds (of which creationists used to say that they were "too complex" to form naturally) in space-rocks.

There is no reason to assume that the origins of life was an "unnatural" event.

 

[AV1611VET]

We aren't even made of "rare" or "extra-ordinary" stuff.

You mean like souls and spirits? or is science myopic?

 

[Skreeper]

or is science myopic?

Is this gonna be your new catchphrase? It's not as impressive as you think it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this gonna be your new catchphrase?

Skreeper, no offense my friend, but I have one thread that has 44 times more pages in it than you have posts.

In short, you don't have a clue as to what all I've said, or how long I've been saying it.

But FYI, here's the oldest post I could find where I said "science is myopic:" 1

You're welcome.

 

[Radrook]

That is simply false.

Nothing about the chemistry of life is in defiance of the laws of physics or chemistry for example.

The carbon-based life on this planet is even build up from the most commonly available elements in the universe. We aren't even made of "rare" or "extra-ordinary" stuff.

We even find organic compounds (of which creationists used to say that they were "too complex" to form naturally) in space-rocks.

There is no reason to assume that the origins of life was an "unnatural" event.

That's not the same as actually seeing it happen which it doesn't. If it did, then you wouldn't have to be putting details together from sheer imagination. Also, there is NOTHING unnatural about life proceeding from life. So you have it all backwards.

 

[Kylie]

Skreeper, no offense my friend, but I have one thread that has 44 times more pages in it than you have posts.

In short, you don't have a clue as to what all I've said, or how long I've been saying it.

But FYI, here's the oldest post I could find where I said "science is myopic:" 1

You're welcome.

Your counting threads don't really contain any posts of substance. Don't forget the difference between quantity and quality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your counting threads don't really contain any posts of substance.

Are they supposed to?

Don't forget the difference between quantity and quality.

What has more quality in your estimation? "science is myopic" or "2 ... 3 ... 4 ..."?

(Please answer this.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's not the same as actually seeing it happen which it doesn't

Just about everything we understand today in science, wasn't understood at some point in the past. Sounds like you are saying that ignorance is a reason not to look for answers, or something...

If it did, then you wouldn't have to be putting details together from sheer imagination.

Not from "sheer imagination", but through study and scientific inquiry.

Also, there is NOTHING unnatural about life proceeding from life. So you have it all backwards.

I never said there was. So I wonder what it is that you think I have "all backwards".

 

[Radrook]

Just about everything we understand today in science, wasn't understood at some point in the past. Sounds like you are saying that ignorance is a reason not to look for answers, or something...



Not from "sheer imagination", but through study and scientific inquiry.



I never said there was. So I wonder what it is that you think I have "all backwards".

I never said that curiosity and a search for truth is wrong.
Imaginative embellishments based on presuppositions and wishful thinking accompanied by irrational refusals to consider far more viable alternatives isn't scientific inquiry. To say that life arises spontaneously without absolutely no observable evidence that it ever has or does is sheer conjecture and not a description of something that nature provides a clear example of. The clear example nature provides is that life is derived only from previous life. That's the NATURAL process and not abiogenesis. That's how it's backwards.


BTW
Scientific inquiry isn't the sole propriety of atheists.

 

[Kylie]

Are they supposed to?

If you are going to trot them out as evidence of you having some kind of special meaning, yeah.

What has more quality in your estimation? "science is myopic" or "2 ... 3 ... 4 ..."?

(Please answer this.)

Technically the first one, although not much. At least it communicates an idea that you have, even though I think you only say it as a way to ignore anything that you don't like.

 

[AV1611VET]

... even though I think you only say it as a way to ignore anything that you don't like.

So if I say that science can't see angels because science is myopic, I'm saying it as a way of ignoring something I don't like?

Or if I say science can't see the Kingdom of Heaven because science is myopic, it's because I'm ignoring something I don't like?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said that curiosity and a search for truth is wrong.

Then what ARE you saying? Because it really does sound as if you are saying that abiogenesis researches are "waisting their time" or something similar. And all you seem to offer to support that, is that we are currently ignorant on how it worked or could work. Which is ironic, because that's precisely the reason why more research would be required.......

Or is there perhaps an underlying problem here? Maybe you are worried about these scientists actually succeeding in solving the problem?

That's an interesting question to ask, actually... how would you react, if let's say tomorrow a team solves the riddle of abiogenesis and is actually capable of demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt how life could naturally arise where there was no life before?

It's a serious question, by the way.

Imaginative embellishments based on presuppositions and wishful thinking accompanied by irrational refusals to consider far more viable alternatives isn't scientific inquiry.

Instead of the vague rethoric and buzzwords, how about you say something concrete?

For example: what "viable" alternatives? How are they "viable"?
What "presuppositions"? What "wishful thinkinge"?

To say that life arises spontaneously without absolutely no observable evidence that it ever has or does is sheer conjecture and not a description of something that nature provides a clear example of.

First, if it was already observed and understood then there would be no need to ask the question.

Secondly, as opposed to what exactly? Unobservable, unsupportable "designers" engaging in unobservable "acts of creation"?

At least the models that abiogenesis researchers come up with, are testable - even if they turn out wrong for the time being.

Here's the thing though... Life exists. It originated somehow. There's no "logic" problem with asking the question and actually attempting to answer it.

That's exactly what abiogenesis researchers are doing: they are willing to ask the question and try and come up with sensible answers.

As opposed to ID'ists or creationists... instead of first asking the question and then getting to work to try and aswer it... they pretend to have the answers before asking the question. They already "know" the answer, because it's written in their holy book.

The clear example nature provides is that life is derived only from previous life. That's the NATURAL process and not abiogenesis. That's how it's backwards.

Still not getting it.
What I said was that nothing about the idea of biogenesis excludes a natural origin of life.

BTW
Scientific inquiry isn't the sole propriety of atheists.

Never said otherwise either. It's actually you folks who consistently try to draw some relation between science and atheism.

 

[Kylie]

So if I say that science can't see angels because science is myopic, I'm saying it as a way of ignoring something I don't like?

Or if I say science can't see the Kingdom of Heaven because science is myopic, it's because I'm ignoring something I don't like?

Yeah, I think so. because you're happy to take the benefits of science as long as they don't disagree with what you've decided is true, but the instant they do, you need some way to dismiss science. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[just a believing guy]

Never said otherwise either. It's actually you folks who consistently try to draw some relation between science and atheism.

It is because atheism draws on pre-Christian times... Remember the ''warlocks'' and the ''witches''?... It was them who, by offering alternatives to Christianity, spread pre-atheism...

 

[bhsmte]

Just about everything we understand today in science, wasn't understood at some point in the past. Sounds like you are saying that ignorance is a reason not to look for answers, or something...



Not from "sheer imagination", but through study and scientific inquiry.



I never said there was. So I wonder what it is that you think I have "all backwards".

For some, looking for answers produces fear.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is because atheism draws on pre-Christian times... Remember the ''warlocks'' and the ''witches''?... It was them who, by offering alternatives to Christianity, spread pre-atheism...

This makes no sense to me.
First, this has nothing to do with science.
Second, an atheist is not a person who just doesn't by into christianity, nore is christianity the first religion known to mankind or whatever.
Third, atheism isn't some "alternative" to religion, any religion, either.

Just like "off" isn't some type of alternative TV channel.

Unless, off course "no religion" is to be called an "alternative to religion".


and happy birthday, btw!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I think so. because you're happy to take the benefits of science as long as they don't disagree with what you've decided is true, but the instant they do, you need some way to dismiss science. In my opinion, anyway.

Can you give me an example of a benefit of science that I am happy to take, while at the same time dismissing the science that produced that benefit according to my Boolean standards?

For example, in your opinion, do I enjoy the benefits of the rays of the sun, while at the same time dismissing stellar evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is because atheism draws on pre-Christian times... Remember the ''warlocks'' and the ''witches''?... It was them who, by offering alternatives to Christianity, spread pre-atheism...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, guy!