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.
What is the objective testable evidence that somebody made it?Yes. It is objective evidence. Somebody made it and it was made by someone who knew how to make it. Now the question is who made it not how did it make itself. The hypothesis that it made itself is kind of ridiculous.
Perhaps if there was such a thing as a God he could, as could Thor, Zeus or a multitude of other imaginary beings,Who else? if we can create things like cars and airplanes, it stands to reason that God can create a universe.
The universe is the evidence; an earth inhabited by intelligent living creatures.
As to how God created it, we are told he declared it and it was so.
Hardly. Anyone can hypothesize about anything. I can hypothesize all I want about turning lead into gold, but I've followed the scientific method only after I've run experiments that either confirm or deny my hypothesis. Honestly, I'm surprised I have to say that in a forum such as this.The hypothesis IS the scientific investigation. The hypothesis is the most important part of the scientific method.
I don't think there's a bridge between the RNA world and the cell. You, or anyone else, can try to demonstrate me wrong. Just call me a "skeptic" on the subject.Until you find out if RNA can be used to create simple life then you can not claim anything about probabilities.
Then find a simpler one that exists somewhere other than your own imagination.It is not the simplest cell. Not even close. They are taking genes away from organisms that have been evolving for 4 billion years. They are far from simple.
Once again, find simpler life that exists somewhere other than your own imagination.Because they have evolved interdependent systems over the last 4 billion years. Why do cities in first world countries require so much electricity? 300 years ago, cities had no electricity whatsoever. However, if you shut the power off to a modern city for a few days you get chaos. Why is that? It is due to the fact that operations of the city have become interdependent on the presence of electricity. It is the same in life.
In fact I would say that it has been proven that it had a beginning would you not agree?
Does he? He uses the quantum physics that were created when the universe came into being. From what I gather from his theory is that the vacuum states are the nothing that was something that was really nothing that created something. What I think he forgets is that this nothing really is something without being nothing. It really is from the something (the universe) that came from really nothing (void of anything even nothing).
Even if you were to accept Krauss's nothing really being something, going back and farther and farther back then you have the same philosophical metaphysical you claim believers do. You also have the argument of turtles all the way down.
You claim that it could have been a natural event outside of the universe, if it were and is not known as of yet you remain in the same boat as the theist. In that you think there is support for your convictions, you have faith that it is true also in this case and so you believe what you believe.
There is evidence that supports an intelligent creator. The universe has laws that can be intelligently observed and measured by mathematical equation. We have constants that are precise to the smallest percentage which have allowed life to evolve. We have distances that are precise to the smallest percentage to allow for the evolution of all life on earth. I could go on and on with the necessity of precision in many many areas of our universe. In the universe one thing is certain and that is that intelligence comes from intelligence. Our lives and the lives of other species of life support intelligent design rather than intelligence arising from a mindless, non-intelligent unguided process.
So what started the regression?
If we remain in the natural realm we don't see anything that doesn't have a first cause. In the natural realm nothing is self existing without cause.
Explain natural conditions prior to natural conditions coming into existence?
See above.
In fact I would say that it has been proven that it had a beginning would you not agree?
Even if you were to accept Krauss's nothing really being something, going back and farther and farther back then you have the same philosophical metaphysical you claim believers do. You also have the argument of turtles all the way down.
You claim that it could have been a natural event outside of the universe, if it were and is not known as of yet you remain in the same boat as the theist.
There is evidence that supports an intelligent creator. The universe has laws that can be intelligently observed and measured by mathematical equation. We have constants that are precise to the smallest percentage which have allowed life to evolve. We have distances that are precise to the smallest percentage to allow for the evolution of all life on earth. I could go on and on with the necessity of precision in many many areas of our universe. In the universe one thing is certain and that is that intelligence comes from intelligence. Our lives and the lives of other species of life support intelligent design rather than intelligence arising from a mindless, non-intelligent unguided process.
So what started the regression? If we remain in the natural realm we don't see anything that doesn't have a first cause. In the natural realm nothing is self existing without cause.
Explain natural conditions prior to natural conditions coming into existence?
Hardly. Anyone can hypothesize about anything. I can hypothesize all I want about turning lead into gold, but I've followed the scientific method only after I've run experiments that either confirm or deny my hypothesis. Honestly, I'm surprised I have to say that in a forum such as this.
I don't think there's a bridge between the RNA world and the cell.
Then find a simpler one that exists somewhere other than your own imagination.
Actually, no, I don't. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence. In the case of abiogenesis through RNA replicators, that's you.We are asking for objective evidence, not unfounded opinion. If you want to claim that abiogenesis is impossible then you need evidence demonstrating that abiogenesis can never occur through RNA replicators.
Once again, the burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence. In the case of a simpler form of life, that's you.Show me that one can never exist. It is your claim, so support it.
Actually, no, I don't. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence.
Once again, the burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence.
Well said.Mmm, not exactly. The universe as we know it had a beginning. But we don't know what there was "before" the singularity. We don't know that "nothing" was the state of things prior to the singularity.
Yes, his nothing is not technically nothing. Can you show that there has ever been a state when literally nothing existed?
I don't necessarily accept Krauss's argument. I have not ruled out the possibility of God. I just have not been convinced of his existence. My point about Krauss was simply to show that your second premise "nothing can come from nothing" has not been confirmed.
No, I am not in the same boat as a theist. I don't claim to know how the universe started. I simply don't know. Neither God, nor natural means have been eliminated or confirmed, so I don't hold a stance other than to say, I don't know.
Evolution is not an unguided process. Life has been forced to evolve a certain way, based on the limitations of nature. So, of course it "fits" perfectly. If it didn't, we'd go extinct.
In regards to the bolded comment above...how is that certain?
Don't know.
What's to say that there is not a metaverse in which the same physics do not apply in other universes....or other somethings which spawned our universe as an offshoot?
I don't have to believe that this is the case to defeat your logic argument. All I need show is that natural explanations have not been ruled out. I'm not trying to rule out God, but for the logic argument to work, and for God to be accepted by default, natural explanations must be ruled out.
Demonstrate that natural conditions had a beginning.
Nope. The table turned, and you did it to yourself. While responding to me you made two claims of existence (RNA replicators, simpler forms of life). There's nothing wrong with that, but the burden of proof remains on the individual proposing existence. And in those two instances that's you. I get to briefly be a skeptic (and being a skeptic is easy).You are making positive claims that the probability of abiogenesis is too low to have occurred naturally. That is YOUR CLAIM. You need to support it with evidence.
Nope. The table turned, and you did it to yourself. While responding to me you made two claims of existence (RNA replicators, simpler forms of life). There's nothing wrong with that, but the burden of proof remains on the individual proposing existence. And in those two instances that's you. I get to briefly be a skeptic (and being a skeptic is easy).
Mmm, not exactly. The universe as we know it had a beginning. But we don't know what there was "before" the singularity. We don't know that "nothing" was the state of things prior to the singularity.
Yes, his nothing is not technically nothing. Can you show that there has ever been a state when literally nothing existed?
I don't necessarily accept Krauss's argument. I have not ruled out the possibility of God. I just have not been convinced of his existence. My point about Krauss was simply to show that your second premise "nothing can come from nothing" has not been confirmed.
No, I am not in the same boat as a theist. I don't claim to know how the universe started. I simply don't know. Neither God, nor natural means have been eliminated or confirmed, so I don't hold a stance other than to say, I don't know.
Evolution is not an unguided process. Life has been forced to evolve a certain way, based on the limitations of nature. So, of course it "fits" perfectly. If it didn't, we'd go extinct.
In regards to the bolded comment above...how is that certain?
Don't know.
What's to say that there is not a metaverse in which the same physics do not apply in other universes....or other somethings which spawned our universe as an offshoot?
I don't have to believe that this is the case to defeat your logic argument. All I need show is that natural explanations have not been ruled out. I'm not trying to rule out God, but for the logic argument to work, and for God to be accepted by default, natural explanations must be ruled out.
Demonstrate that natural conditions had a beginning.
You forgot the second part where you claimed that there was nothing prior to the beginning of the universe. There are theories in astrophysics which posit that there was something prior to the beginning of our universe.
"The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.[6]"
Brane cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Far from being proven, your first premise is still very much up for debate.
Therefore, lightning is caused by God because we have an infinite regress, right?
You mean we both don't have objective evidence?
You have yet to produce objective evidence that this precision requires an intelligent designer, or that one was involved.
So how do you conclude "God did it" from that?
We don't know, and neither do you.
Another God of the Gaps fallacy on its way?
I recall reading an argument for the universe having a beginning stating that the evidence is to be found in the fact that energy is still found clumped together. If the universe had existed forever then energy would be spread out pretty much equally everywhere and we would have no stars. I'm not a physicist, so I can't expand on that argument or quibble with it, but I find it a very pleasing idea that the existence of stars proves the universe had a beginning. Perhaps someone who knows more than me about physics (or astrophysics) could comment.
The truth bhsmte? Who's truth...yours or mine? Truth can be painful but what is more painful is when there is no objective truth but just what is true for you or what is true for me.
Really, those who want to rely on objective evidence before drawing a conclusion? It is one thing for you and I or any of the theists or non-theists to reach conclusions based on objective evidence however it is another thing for those in the highest positions in science to leave objectivity behind and crusade against God, and not even just any ol'god but the Christian God specifically. Where in science is there room for religious or non-religious motives? I have joined in the past with those unbeliever's that spoke out against those in the religious community that would alter or spin facts to suit their agendas. Science was to be held to a higher standard than one man's one religion's ideology. Krauss's goal should be to find an answer and leave the philosophy of religion to those in those fields. I ask how is Krauss any better than any person that makes metaphysical declarations citing the evidence to back it? Now if Krauss wants to share his personal worldview and take his evidence as support for that worldview then by all means outside of the scientific realm that is acceptable. It seems, and I am just now researching it so I could be wrong, but it seems that rather than his book and theory being scientific in nature it has a goal which is not scientific. That is to me wrong.
First of all, failed in what way? I think it is in the eye of the beholder perhaps. Regardless, I don't "feel bad" that my evidence is not accepted by all. What disturbs me are the arguments against it. The only one in this entire thread that gave any sort of good argumentation was 46AND2 and I wanted to jump through the screen and give him a big hug. Did he agree with me, no, but he gave his honest assessment of the argument and didn't just put it out there that there was no objective evidence. He needs an award for knowing the difference between objective evidence and that in which is used in support. KUDOS to him.
Well there my not be anything wrong with it, but if someone doesn't have something to base that faith upon, I have to question their reasons for having it.
That sounds like Hawkings. I can't say for certain but I think that is where I would look if you are interested.
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?