Please stop!!!

[Maxwell511]

Please stop insulting your God and comparing him to human designers. If you believe that God created the universe in order to create life please stop. If God created all the rules why would he create a universe where he would have to break it's rules to create life? God makes rules he is not subservient to them. If he is truely an intelligent designer and a perfect being he wouldn't have made it the way you claim.

This is just my IMO btw. Any comments?

 

[SackLunch]

This is a Christian board. Discussions regarding God and His role in creating the universe will continue unabated. Sorry!

There are plenty of secular boards out there that you may be interested in though, many in the scientific realm.

 

[SackLunch]

One more question though. Why are you so hostile towards God to the point of asking people to stop talking about Him? Don't you know that He loves you and wants a personal relationship with you through Jesus Christ?

Just a thought.

 

[Nightson]

One more question though. Why are you so hostile towards God to the point of asking people to stop talking about Him? Don't you know that He loves you and wants a personal relationship with you through Jesus Christ?

Just a thought.

Last I checked he was asking you not to insult God. He said nothing even remotely like asking people to stop talking about him, and he wasn't hostile.

 

[Battie]

One more question though. Why are you so hostile towards God to the point of asking people to stop talking about Him? Don't you know that He loves you and wants a personal relationship with you through Jesus Christ?

Just a thought.

I don't think that was his point. He is saying (I believe) that he doesn't think it's right that the God that some describe would have to break all the rules of this world to create His world. He's not asking that we stop talking about God.

I think that's an honest question and the discussion of it should not be discouraged.

 

[Maxwell511]

Sacklunch,

Honestly. You misunderstand the point of my OP. I am just saying that God would have created a universe that would be able to create life by itself if the point of his universe was to create or sustain it. I'm not insulting him or anything like that I am rather putting a higher idea of him than I.D's seem to belief.

 

[Maxwell511]

I don't think that was his point. He is saying (I believe) that he doesn't think it's right that the God that some describe would have to break all the rules of this world to create His world. He's not asking that we stop talking about God.

I think that's an honest question and the discussion of it should not be discouraged.

That's exactly it.

 

[Caphi]

@ Maxwell:

Please explain what kind of Universe would be able to create life routinely all by itself. As it stands, the Universe has several mathematical properties which are all within a very delicate range to allow life to occur. You seem to expect a Universe that churns out life as the Ford conveyor belt churns out cars.

 

[Maxwell511]

@ Maxwell:

Please explain what kind of Universe would be able to create life routinely all by itself. As it stands, the Universe has several mathematical properties which are all within a very delicate range to allow life to occur. You seem to expect a Universe that churns out life as the Ford conveyor belt churns out cars.

I think this one can. The thing is that if God could create a universe that he wished to create life in, as he can design the rules for how life can be created, why wouldn't he make the rules in a universe such that life can come into being without his further intervention?

Edit: forgot to put the "in" in.

 

[nvxplorer]

@ Maxwell:

Please explain what kind of Universe would be able to create life routinely all by itself. As it stands, the Universe has several mathematical properties which are all within a very delicate range to allow life to occur. You seem to expect a Universe that churns out life as the Ford conveyor belt churns out cars.

What exactly is the "delicate range" you refer to? From what we know, life requires a source of energy, material elements from which to build, and liquid water. To me, these properties do not seem to be delicate or rare.

 

[Caphi]

What exactly is the "delicate range" you refer to? From what we know, life requires a source of energy, material elements from which to build, and liquid water. To me, these properties do not seem to be delicate or rare.

From The Fifth Miracle, by Paul Davies

To take a simple example, life as we know it demands certain chemical elements, especially carbon. But few carbon atoms were made in the big bang; most were manufactured inside stars. Fred Hoyle had already noticed that the successful production of carbon in stars is actually a rather touch-and-go affair. It depends delicately on the properties of nuclear forces... the very existence of life is a dicey affair, a consequence of some happy coincidences in the underlying mathematical structure of the Universe.

The point I was trying to make is that Maxwell apparently thinks that if God exists at all, he would have made the Universe in such a way that life would be a routine consequence of molecular development, and I'm asking him to justify this logic. It seems to me that the Universe is already carbon-based-life-friendly enough, whether it be by coincidence or by design, so I'm trying to see exactly what his thought processes are.

 

[nvxplorer]

The point I was trying to make is that Maxwell apparently thinks that if God exists at all, he would have made the Universe in such a way that life would be a routine consequence of molecular development, and I'm asking him to justify this logic. It seems to me that the Universe is already carbon-based-life-friendly enough, whether it be by coincidence or by design, so I'm trying to see exactly what his thought processes are.

I may be misreading the OP, but Maxwell seems to say that because the universe is already life friendly, God would have no reason to create life supernaturally.

 

[Caphi]

This topic confuses me. IF a god created the Universe, he would make it suitable for some form of life, so why would he need to create... argh, my head hurts.

 

[cerad]

This topic confuses me. IF a god created the Universe, he would make it suitable for some form of life, so why would he need to create... argh, my head hurts.

Take an aspirin then read slowly. The OP suggests that God was probably smart enough to create a universe in which life could self-organize and evolve.

The OP considers it an insult to say that God would have to keep "poofing" in new kinds of life as ID requires. And I think there is also a hint that much of life seems to be poorly designed and thus attributing it's creation directly to God reflects poorly God's bioengineering skills.

 

[Smidlee]

Please stop insulting your God and comparing him to human designers.

Actually I see God design in nature many times superior than man-made design. In fact we get a lot of our design from nature. (we cheat)

If you believe that God created the universe in order to create life please stop. If God created all the rules why would he create a universe where he would have to break it's rules to create life? God makes rules he is not subservient to them.

I didn't know God created this universe by rules. In scriptures god created by His WORD. I believe the universe is built by God's Word / language. We are now able to see the language/word that's build in a living cell.

If he is truely an intelligent designer and a perfect being he wouldn't have made it the way you claim.

If I was God I would have probably done thing different but I'm not which is a good thing. To know what god would or wouldn't do you must know God. I'm still growing and haven't reach to the point to know why and what God would do something. maybe you know more about God than I do.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Thanks, Maxwell...

My one biggest problem with Creation Scientists is that they tend to slight the beauty of the universe as it is in favor of how they would like it to be. Why should my God have to resort to magic? The world as it really is truly incredible, even without big fireworks and miraculous hocus-pocus to kick it off.

 

[Smidlee]

Thanks, Maxwell...

My one biggest problem with Creation Scientists is that they tend to slight the beauty of the universe as it is in favor of how they would like it to be. Why should my God have to resort to magic? The world as it really is truly incredible, even without big fireworks and miraculous hocus-pocus to kick it off.

What wrong with magic? I sure if someone from the past see we have done today they would have called it magic. For all we know gravity is nothing but magic, the stuff holding atoms together is magic. The problem here we made and build rules to help us understand the universe around us. Then we try to put God in this box of rules. Yet almost all our rules and laws usually have exceptions where they don't work or are flat contradictive. In order to make the Big Bang theory to fix into our rules we had to figure 90% of our universe is made of invisible stuff that not matter nor has been proven to even exist. (that's about as close to magic as you can get.) The origins of life is even worst shape especially since the law of thermodynamics works againest building something as fragile as a cell.

 

[nvxplorer]

The origins of life is even worst shape especially since the law of thermodynamics works againest building something as fragile as a cell.

 

[raphael_aa]

...origins of life is even worst shape especially since the law of thermodynamics works againest building something as fragile as a cell.

Would you care to back that up? I'm sure on this very forum I've seen quite a few threads where this very misunderstanding is addressed. To continue to use it smacks of willful ignorance.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And yet simple cells are generated from other cells in their trillions on a daily basis. Something tells me that Smidlee's version of the SLoT isn't the one that actual real physicists and chemists use, or I think they'd have noticed that life is impossible.

And life is impossible according to the creationist version of the SLoT. Life is a temporary, localised reversal of entropy. Life uses energy input to push chemical reactions the "wrong" way, in a similar way to how a crane uses energy input to move heavy objects the "wrong" way - away from the earth. Biochemistry is fascinating in this regard - the Krebs cycle, for example, is a series of energetically favourable reactions - oxidation of sugars, to simplify to very great degree - where the energy released is harnessed to drive an energetically unfavourable process - the phosphorylation of adenosine diphosphate (ADP) to adenosine triphosphate (ATP). In turn, the energetically favourable dephosphorylation of the ATP back to ADP drives other energetically unfavourable reactions which essentially make life work.

So why this digression into simplified A Level biochemistry? To show how entropy really works. A reaction that decreases entropy can happen in a localised part of a system. Life is not impossible; abiogenesis is not impossible, evolution is not impossible, as long as there's an energy input into the localised part of the system - a solution of chemicals, a cell, an organism. Until the heat death of the universe, there will always be localities where energy can flow into other localities, and so energetically unfavourable reactions can always be driven.

ETA - there's probably a BSc or PhD in Biochem on here who can correct my errors; I'm sure I've made some.