I don't understand...

[catholichomeschooler]

That's not what I asked.

You claimed no intelligent force was responsible for the creation of the universe. That is a guess.

It is a guess that has scientific evidence that suggest it. While your guess had an old book.[/QUOTE]

There is no scientific evidence one way or another. You are just guessing. There is ZERO empirical evidence from before the creation of the universe.

 

[LastSeven]

You guys really need to learn how those quotes work.

 

[Snake75]

There is no scientific evidence one way or another. You are just guessing. There is ZERO empirical evidence from before the creation of the universe.

Let me just make this clear because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying... There is no proof that god exist or does not exist. But, science has found answers to things that we once thought just happened because God. The idea the earth is 6000 years old.Which is thought by many creationist is COMPLETELY false and makes absolutely no sense. They say this because the bible tells them the world is 6000 years old. Science obliterated that claim and estimated the earth is 4.54 BILLION years old.

Before science most people thought we were born from dust of God and the rib of man. Now, we know evolution is how we are who we are (Although people are too stubborn to agree)

You guys really need to learn how those quotes work.

I was using my smart phone at the time so it was hard to type

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Let me just make this clear because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying... There is no proof that god exist or does not exist. But, science has found answers to things that we once thought just happened because God. The idea the earth is 6000 years old.Which is thought by many creationist is COMPLETELY false and makes absolutely no sense. They say this because the bible tells them the world is 6000 years old. Science obliterated that claim and estimated the earth is 4.54 BILLION years old.

Before science most people thought we were born from dust of God and the rib of man. Now, we know evolution is how we are who we are (Although people are too stubborn to agree)

You are about 50 years out of date.

I highly recommend you check out the book by Gerald Schroeder, "The Hidden Face of God".

 

[Snake75]

You are about 50 years out of date.

I highly recommend you check out the book by Gerald Schroeder, "The Hidden Face of God".

Explain why I am.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Explain why I am.

Those positions aren't held by serious thinking Christians today.

Many leading scientists are Christians or theists.

Many claim that their scientific careers led them to a belief in God.

What do they know that you don't?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Those positions aren't held by serious thinking Christians today.

Many leading scientists are Christians or theists.

Many claim that their scientific careers led them to a belief in God.

What do they know that you don't?

One of the leading atheist thinkers of the 20th century:



FYI:

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death,[3] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[4] In 2003 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.[5] However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of God.[6]


Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Snake75]

Those positions aren't held by serious thinking Christians today.

Many leading scientists are Christians or theists.

Many claim that their scientific careers led them to a belief in God.

What do they know that you don't?

So,your saying that Christians only take parts of science that agree with their beliefs and throw out the rest.

Do you not know that a overwhelming majority of scientist are Atheist. Many of which were religious but turned Atheist after really looking at the facts. Your 5% of Christian Scientist means very little.

One of the leading atheist thinkers of the 20th century:



FYI:

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death,[3] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[4] In 2003 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.[5] However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of God.[6]


Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You guys always seem to try to bring up what one person has said.

Here have 5.5 religious leaders who became outspoken atheists - Salon.com

 

[catholichomeschooler]

So,your saying that Christians only take parts of science that agree with their beliefs and throw out the rest.

Do you not know that a overwhelming majority of scientist are Atheist. Many of which were religious but turned Atheist after really looking at the facts. Your 5% of Christian Scientist means very little.



You guys always seem to try to bring up what one person has said.

Here have 5.5 religious leaders who became outspoken atheists - Salon.com

You are missing the point. Your arguments are old and irrelevant.

 

[Snake75]

You are missing the point. Your arguments are old and irrelevant.

No there not.

Ken Ham, William Lane Craig and many other christians till this day argue that evolution and the big bang theory didnt happen.

If you were reading anything on this thread you would have seen LastSeven and Aiki arguing about it too.....

 

[aiki]

And I ask again: Are you saying the number 7 does not exist?
​

Not as a living being like you say god is.

But in what respect did I say that numbers and God are alike?

1.) Numbers and God exist intangibly.
2.) Numbers and God are, nonetheless, real things.

I never suggested that numbers were conscious, living entities. Regardless, you do agree that numbers do, in fact, exist?

The universe did exist but not in its current state. Pre big bang theory says the universe was in a tiny dense state (a singularity) so you see there was not nothing. There needs to be one form of energy to create another.

But positing a superdense singularity as the source of the universe doesn't solve anything for the person who wonders where everything came from. Just as the universe could not pop into existence out of nothing, the singularity out of which scientists theorize the universe expanded could not have sprung into existence out of nothing, either.

Yes I agree, I think you get a infinite regress either way. The human brain is not equipped to deal with paradoxes and false dichotomies

I don't see how. If God, by definition, is an uncaused First Cause, if He exists necessarily (See Gottfried Liebniz's Argument from Contingency), then there is no reason to posit an infinite regress. Certainly, this seems a much better explanation of where everything came from than to say that nothing gave rise to something, which is obviously ridiculous.

So does rib women and a talking snake better fit reality?

Again, that depends upon what you presuppose philosophically about the nature of the universe. Supernatural events in a universe that has a supernatural dimension/Creator is no surprise to me...

Positing a Creator-God certainly makes more sense to me than holding that everything came from nothing or that aliens seeded the human race on the planet. I see evidence of a Creator in the beauty, complexity, function, and design of the universe. I see no evidence for alien progenitors of the human race, nor has anyone ever witnessed something arising out of nothing.

So does the slaughter of children and slavery better fit one's world view?

I don't know, does it? Does the slaughter of children and/or slavery fit with your world view? It doesn't with mine.

Selah.

 

[chrisstavrous]

I have read hundreds of after death stories and never once has anybody claimed to have seen only blackness during death. There is always an experience. If you can find me such a story, please share.

I will.

 

[Johnnz]

I will.

How will you prove it to anyone else? Isn't yours a faith based belief?

John
NZ

 

[lifetips]

I don't understand why people believe in some supreme being. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no evidence at all of its existence. Science has found the answers to almost everything that was once thought of as Gods doing.What keeps you believing in this?

A very interesting and common question. I have a question for you that may assist in answering your question. You obviously don't believe that God created life on earth because it's based on faith and not fact, from your point of view.

So, as an Atheist, do you believe in the natural origins of life on earth and do you believe that it has been proven by science?

 

[Snake75]

A very interesting and common question. I have a question for you that may assist in answering your question. You obviously don't believe that God created life on earth because it's based on faith and not fact, from your point of view.

So, as an Atheist, do you believe in the natural origins of life on earth and do you believe that it has been proven by science?

I do. We haven't completely discovered what caused like. But science is likely to find it soon.

 

[lifetips]

I do. We haven't completely discovered what caused like. But science is likely to find it soon.

Okay, so you believe in abiogenesis - the natural origins of life on earth and believe that one day scientists will find out how it happened.

So until then, is your belief in abiogenesis based on fact or faith?

Do you think that creationists are unscientific for basing their belief in the creation of life on earth on faith?

 

[oi_antz]

Hey Snake, this has all become an argument about science and competing philosophies to the origins of life. I am wondering if I should keep watching this thread or not, because I'm more interested to see whether there is something about Christianity that you don't understand that you are seeking to understand. Do you think you will get round to addressing it in this thread?

 

[Snake75]

Okay, so you believe in abiogenesis - the natural origins of life on earth and believe that one day scientists will find out how it happened.

So until then, is your belief in abiogenesis based on fact or faith?

Do you think that creationists are unscientific for basing their belief in the creation of life on earth on faith?

It is based on facts. Scientist say that simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules. And they have evidence to back up their claims.

Yes. There is no scientific evidence at all for there claims. So naturally that means its unscientific

 

[aiki]

It is based on facts. Scientist say that simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules. And they have evidence to back up their claims.

THis is what is called a "just so" story. In fact, matter is not spontaneously self-organizing into complex, organic forms. What attempts have been made to create life from "primordial ooze" have been highly artificial to say the least and completely unsuccessful.

"Nevertheless, Dr. Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and Adam Johnson, a graduate student at Indiana University, reanalyzed the sludge in the bottom of some of the late Miller’s 50-year-old vials, searching for bits of hope.1 In the residue from materials that had received steam injections as well as sparks, the researchers discovered 10 amino acids “that had never been identified before from the Miller-Urey experiment,”2 leading to speculation that gases from volcanic eruptions could have played a role in the chemical reactions that led to the first life.

However, only one of these newly-identified amino acids is found in living cells. None were stereochemically pure, there are only faint traces of them, and the electric discharge apparatus that created them had to be removed from the process before it destroyed them. Thus, these new traces offer no advances in origin of life research—which is still dead in the water.

After decades of investigation, no environment has been discovered that facilitates abiogenesis. The richest inventory of chemical compounds have been zapped, irradiated, dried, rehydrated, and subjected to a host of parameters. All of these processes, however, have resulted in disorganized matter. In order to provide an appropriate framework for life, a machinist would still be necessary, one who could construct several thousand specific proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, and lipids in their exact configurations, all the while maintaining the integrity of each molecule in the collection." Brian Thomas M.S. - The Institute for Creation Research

Selah.

 

[Snake75]

THis is what is cahttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtmllled a "just so" story. In fact, matter is not spontaneously self-organizing into complex, organic forms. What attempts have been made to create life from "primordial ooze" have been highly artificial to say the least and completely unsuccessful.

"Nevertheless, Dr. Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and Adam Johnson, a graduate student at Indiana University, reanalyzed the sludge in the bottom of some of the late Miller’s 50-year-old vials, searching for bits of hope.1 In the residue from materials that had received steam injections as well as sparks, the researchers discovered 10 amino acids “that had never been identified before from the Miller-Urey experiment,”2 leading to speculation that gases from volcanic eruptions could have played a role in the chemical reactions that led to the first life.

However, only one of these newly-identified amino acids is found in living cells. None were stereochemically pure, there are only faint traces of them, and the electric discharge apparatus that created them had to be removed from the process before it destroyed them. Thus, these new traces offer no advances in origin of life research—which is still dead in the water.

After decades of investigation, no environment has been discovered that facilitates abiogenesis. The richest inventory of chemical compounds have been zapped, irradiated, dried, rehydrated, and subjected to a host of parameters. All of these processes, however, have resulted in disorganized matter. In order to provide an appropriate framework for life, a machinist would still be necessary, one who could construct several thousand specific proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, and lipids in their exact configurations, all the while maintaining the integrity of each molecule in the collection." Brian Thomas M.S. - The Institute for Creation Research
Selah.

As soon as I saw this was from a creationist website I knew it was BS. No one takes them seriously because they like to reword things and remove things so it fits there views. If it were truly impossible scientists wouldn't still be trying to solve it....

Here is a theory science has explained.Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life