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.
Doesn't need to have a consensus. I'm not stating that something definitely can come from nothing; just that we don't know for certain that nothing can come from nothing...or even that "nothing" has ever actually existed...or didn't exist...or whatever. ;-)
No, I didn't admit that. Because while the creation itself wasn't observed by us, the results of it can be. And I think the sheer complexity of even the simplest life defies it's naturalistic creation and is evidence for deliberate creation.Then you are admitting that there is no objective evidence of God. If there is objective evidence then we can apply the scientific method.
That's OK, I don't expect us to agree.I am still not seeing any objective evidence to back your claims. All I am seeing is empty assertions.
Hypothesizing is fine, but that's only the beginning of scientific investigation. Scientific conclusions are based on experimentation, observation, and repeatability. Try browsing Eugene Koonin's paper. Googling his name and "multiverse" will find it. It sounds like he's been frustrated by the RNA world and is resorting to the "infinite multiverse" and the "cosmological model of eternal inflation". I have to admit I admire him for his honesty and tenaciousness.Why would the first life require proteins or DNA? RNA can act as both a genetic molecule and as an enzyme which fills the roles of both DNA and proteins.
What the minimal genome projects are demonstrating is that there must be hundreds of distinct proteins being created to keep the simplest cell alive, even in an ideal medium.The minimal genome project only applies to modern life that has evolved over 4 billion years, not abiogenesis.
Yes. Quantum Mechanics. What you propose was missing the idea of "something from nothing". Which actually has some evidence to back it up. Testable evidence.
I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't and how one can say something has evidence and how someone else says its not. What amazes me is that I've know anti-theists for many many years in debates and can honestly say that the sentiment has always been about the same but the respect for science and science methodology was always always keep at the highest standard of objectivity. Science was not about ideology or putting one more nail in God's coffin but about discovery and a search for truth.
In trying to kill off God I am seeing the last gasps in a dying realm that has lead us to the greatest heights in mankind's endeavor for making better lives through the quest of knowledge and understanding. I now see science not as a great institution of objectivity and research to provide a path to where ever it leads but an ideological bully pulpit that has as its main goal to silence religion and once and for all put God in His long sought after grave. Truth and objectivity, physical and experimental have taken the back seat to the philosophy of anti-theism and its mighty push to relieve man's need for a god. It truly is a dark day. It truly is a dark day for those who aspire to truth and discovery. It is a dark day but not for religion or for those of us that believe in God but for those who would rather kill science than let God live.
I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't and how one can say something has evidence and how someone else says its not. What amazes me is that I've know anti-theists for many many years in debates and can honestly say that the sentiment has always been about the same but the respect for science and science methodology was always always keep at the highest standard of objectivity. Science was not about ideology or putting one more nail in God's coffin but about discovery and a search for truth.
In trying to kill off God I am seeing the last gasps in a dying realm that has lead us to the greatest heights in mankind's endeavor for making better lives through the quest of knowledge and understanding. I now see science not as a great institution of objectivity and research to provide a path to where ever it leads but an ideological bully pulpit that has as its main goal to silence religion and once and for all put God in His long sought after grave. Truth and objectivity, physical and experimental have taken the back seat to the philosophy of anti-theism and its mighty push to relieve man's need for a god. It truly is a dark day. It truly is a dark day for those who aspire to truth and discovery. It is a dark day but not for religion or for those of us that believe in God but for those who would rather kill science than let God live.
I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't
As I have always said, there is nothing wrong with believing on faith and I am always baffled why so many christians aren't willing to make this simple admission - they believe on faith.
You can keep typing what you like, but you still have provided no objective evidence to show God created the universe.
Type 'crazy Christians' into YouTube and see what comes up, it will make you proud to be a Christian.
SOMEONE? What a stupid thing to say.
Because while the creation itself wasn't observed by us, the results of it can be. And I think the sheer complexity of even the simplest life defies it's naturalistic creation and is evidence for deliberate creation.
Hypothesizing is fine, but that's only the beginning of scientific investigation.
Scientific conclusions are based on experimentation, observation, and repeatability. Try browsing Eugene Koonin's paper. Googling his name and "multiverse" will find it. It sounds like he's been frustrated by the RNA world and is resorting to the "infinite multiverse" and the "cosmological model of eternal inflation". I have to admit I admire him for his honesty and tenaciousness.
Should someone actually turn a strand of RNA into a cell I'm certain we'll all hear of it. Until then, the idea is just a hypothesis. And making hypotheses is the easy part.
What the minimal genome projects are demonstrating is that there must be hundreds of distinct proteins being created to keep the simplest cell alive, even in an ideal medium.
Why in the world do cells require so many proteins? Here's one reason:
Did you know that DNA is easily damaged and must be regularly repaired for a cell to survive?
Krauss doesn't have a consensus on the idea that something can come from nothing, even with his atheist science peers. There are tons of refutations online... some good and some bad. But I don't think it is considered a solid theory just yet. Remember, a vacuum is not nothing.
The truth can be painful Once.
If you want to claim those who rely on objective evidence before drawing a conclusion are trying to "kill off God", that tells me more about how irrational you are being in regards to respecting the fact that some disagree with you absent this evidence.
And Once, many smart people before you, have tried to claim they had objective evidence of God and they have all failed, so don't feel bad.
As I have always said, there is nothing wrong with believing on faith and I am always baffled why so many christians aren't willing to make this simple admission - they believe on faith.
I find it illuminating and confirming for my worldview when I see all this about what is objective evidence and what isn't and how one can say something has evidence and how someone else says its not. What amazes me is that I've know anti-theists for many many years in debates and can honestly say that the sentiment has always been about the same but the respect for science and science methodology was always always keep at the highest standard of objectivity. Science was not about ideology or putting one more nail in God's coffin but about discovery and a search for truth.
In trying to kill off God I am seeing the last gasps in a dying realm that has lead us to the greatest heights in mankind's endeavor for making better lives through the quest of knowledge and understanding. I now see science not as a great institution of objectivity and research to provide a path to where ever it leads but an ideological bully pulpit that has as its main goal to silence religion and once and for all put God in His long sought after grave. Truth and objectivity, physical and experimental have taken the back seat to the philosophy of anti-theism and its mighty push to relieve man's need for a god. It truly is a dark day. It truly is a dark day for those who aspire to truth and discovery. It is a dark day but not for religion or for those of us that believe in God but for those who would rather kill science than let God live.
A God may be able to, yes. Now, just show us objective evidence this is how the universe was created.
You wanted a critique of your post 194.
1. Number 1 has not been proven, as you suggest.
2. We don't know that nothing comes from nothing. In fact, we have evidence that this is NOT the case. Lawrence Krauss explains this well.
3. Since one and two have not been adequately eliminated, number three cannot be accepted by default. Furthermore, even if it could be, it does not mean the Christian God was the creator. It could have been some other god, it could have been a natural event outside of the universe.
Your other 3 assertions are not logical assertions:
1. The creation of the universe does not necessarily require a someone or something with a creative mind. How have you eliminated an as yet unknown natural beginning for the universe?
2. Did not have to be eternal. Yes, there might be a regression. How have you eliminated some kind of regression, wherein the universe was created through natural means, and those natural means were created through some other natural means and so on?
3. A sentient creator is not necessary to explain why the rules of physics work the way they do. They could very well be a natural result of natural conditions.
You are merely asserting that someone or something had to create these rules. How have you eliminated the possibility of them arising naturally?
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?