God is not an alternative! It's an imagined agent; an imagined magician, not an alternative explanation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
leroy
Well-Known Member
And we just name it God………….the evidence indicates that the universe (the physical world) had a cause) and by logical deduction it has to be timeless, immaterial, spaceless, powerfull, and personal…………..(we just call it God)
Obviously you disagree, but you are expected to provide and develop an alternative
Pretend that I deny that dark matter is the best explanation………. Wouldn’t you ask me to provide an alternative explanation and show that this explanation is better?
Sounds like a big excuse for not providing an alternative explanation and avoiding a burden proof
leroy
Well-Known Member
no, dark matter is a "thing" something with gravity and that doesnt emit light or energy .
There are maaaaaany alternative explanations, for why we detect “extra gravity” in galaxies but postulating the existence of this “dark matter” seems to be the best alternative.
Anyone who denies that dark matter is the best explanation, is expected to provide an alternative…………..agree? (Yes)…………..if you don’t explicitly disagree with this point I will assume that you agree
Nobody is asking you to worship God………….all you are being asked is to ether
1 agree that God is the best explanation (you don’t have to grant tha it is the correct explanation)
2 disagree and provide your alternative
This is the same thing you would ask me if I deny the existence of dark matter
That is a red hearing fallacy, you are being asked to provide an alternative for the origin of the universe and show that this alternative is better than God.
You question is just a dishonest attempt to distract and move the conversation to an other topic.
??? -- do you think physicists just pulled the idea out of their hats? Unexplainable gravitational effects were being observed -- with no visible mass to account for it. Dark matter is just the handle physicists began using for whatever was causing the effect. It's not an argument.
Physics doesn't claim to understand it, but they had to call it something.
No! You keep presenting God as an explanation. It's not. It's an attribution; a claim of a cosmic magician.
Last edited:
No. God explains nothing. It's an attribution, not an explanation.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
It would be appropriate for you to link to something, anything, relevant to this "observation" of yours. Is it that you mean those who are struggling with logic here are also those who also struggle with evolution?
That I can agree with.
gnostic
The Lost One
if you dont do a little research, none of the models to the hypothesis Abiogenesis ever claim to come from nothing.
Abiogenesis required understanding of not just organic chemistry, but also that of inorganic chemistry too. So they need to know HOW some inorganic molecules & compounds can synthesise into organic or biological molecules & compounds, via chemical reactions.
Every organisms, whether it be unicellular organisms like prokaryotic domain of Bacteria or domain of Archaea, or eukaryotic Protista, micro-algae, unicellular Fungi (eg yeasts), …or multicellular eukaryotes like kingdom Fungi, kingdom Plantae & kingdom Animalia.
All of these organisms have cells. Cells are the building blocks of all life, of both unicellular organisms & multicellular organisms.
Multicellular organisms have all types of tissues, and every tissues are made of cells.
There are many types of cells, but they can generally divided into main groups, those with a cell that has a nucleus & one or more membrane-bound organelles, this type of cells are called eukaryotic cell, and those without a nucleus & organelles, and this type of cells are called prokaryotic cell.
But what are cells? What are inside every cells?
Every single cells are made of numbers different biological compounds & molecules, but what are common compounds & molecules that exist in every cells. They have narrowed it down to 4 biological macromolecules (“large molecules”):
- PROTEINS, which are made of chains of amino acids. There are many different types of proteins, and each types would have specific functions and characteristics. For multicellular organisms, proteins in cells generally provide structures to different types of tissues.
- NUCLEIC ACIDS, which contains genetic information of every organisms in RNA & DNA, which the traits are inherited from parent organisms to offspring organisms. Like proteins they existed in chain of biopolymeric nucleotides. Each nucleotides contain the following molecules - sugar (eg ribose sugar for RNA, deoxyribose sugars for DNA), 4 nucleobase molecules & one group of phosphate.
- CARBOHYDRATES, another biopolymeric compounds, common referred to as sugar, but there are many different types of carbohydrates, which each would num of different functions. I have already mentioned two of these carbohydrates in the “nucleic acids“, ribose & deoxyribose, which formed the polymers of each nucleotide, ribose in single helix RNA nucleotide & 2 deoxyribose in double helixes DNA nucleotide.
- LIPIDS, are made of fatty acids, but they are not polymeric, and like proteins & carbohydrates, different types of lipids will have different functions, but the most common one in every cells, they acted as membranes that protect the cells.
Note that RNA & DNA have 3 common nucleobase molecules for each nucleotide: adenine, cytosine & guanine, plus thymine for DNA, and uracil for RNA. So each nucleotide have a total of 6 different types of molecules.
Knowing these 4 types of biological macromolecules, scientists that are researching different models of Abiogenesis, try to synthesise these macromolecules from any number of inorganic molecules or compounds, in experiments from the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment to the present. These experiments are attempting to synthesise any one or more of these biological compounds or molecules, as these macromolecules are essential for all cells.
So Abiogenesis is much about chemistry as it is about biology, and Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of each these molecules.
So biologists and biochemists that are involved in researches of Abiogenesis, required knowledge & understanding of cell biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics , and number of other fields.
To say Abiogenesis come from nothing, only give credence to creationists being ignorant as to what abiogenesis is really about. Life wouldn’t exist if any one of these macromolecules didn’t exist. These macromolecules cannot simply come from nothing.
lipids are made from fatty acids. Carbohydrates are made from different types of carbon-based molecules. RNA & DNA are made of 6 different types of molecules and proteins are made of at least 22 different possible amino acids out of over 500 different types of amino acids.
Creationists are so silly with their ignorance, if they seriously believe that these molecules just popped into existence from nothing.
In the Miller-Urey experiment, they used 4 different inorganic chemicals: water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, all of which would exist in the young Earth environment. Chemical reactions with these chemicals, Stanley Miller & Harold Urey were able to detect 9 different amino acids. When Miller died in 2007, the stored vials of chemicals were brought out again, and a total of 20 different types of amino acids were detected.
These inorganic substances are not “nothing”.
Nothing don’t exist, not even in deep space.
Dark matter is an observed effect with no known explanation. Goddidit! is a claim that magic is the correct "explanation" for phenomena that do have known, observable, testable explanations/mechanisms.
Everyone agrees on the observed effects of dark matter. Noöne is attributing the effects to any intentional personage.
Physicists don't claim to understand the phenomenon. They're comfortable with "I don't know," while the phenomenon is being researched. They're not conveniently attributing it to cosmic færies.
An explanation of what? Proof of what? Who's making the claim, here?
Nobody's claiming to understand the phenomenon. "Dark Matter" is just the name given to the phenomenon under investigation.
But neither God nor dark matter is an explanation.
Theists have provided no evidence for God, or even of any phenomena that could only be attributed to Him. God is not under investigation.
There is objective evidence of dark matter; there is none for God.
Physics is actively working on explanations of origins. Theism is not. Theism doesn't even propose an explanation, just an agent.
Plant food.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, because there is no reasonable logic to think or say that there may not be things we cannot see even IF we don't believe that there may not be unseen objects, beings, forces, that we do not know about. Let me see if I can phrase this a bit better. To say that because we don't know if something--anything--exists if we cannot see it means it does not exist or may not exist is illogical. There's more but I'll leave it at that for now.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I think that chihuahuas came because of inbreeding, selective or not. They are dogs. I do not believe Maize and dogs evolved from one or two "unknown common ancestors," even if a scientist speculates they do.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Thanks for reminding me, I forgot on Sunday.
No, you do more than just name it as the cause of phenomena you don't understand. You anthropomorphize it and imbue it with all sorts of qualities there's no evidence of. You propose a superman and magician. Physics doesn't do anything of the sort with dark matter.
OK... What is it we do?
Alternative to what? Comparing God to dark matter is an apples-and-oranges argument. They're not remotely comparable.
Physicists are not imputing imaginary actions, characteristics, purpose, or intentions to dark matter.
Physics can meet its burden of demonstrating that there is a gravitational effect by something unobserved.
Theology can't meet its burdens of evidencing an invisible, magical, conscious, intentional personage, that created and manages the cosmos. Neither can it demonstrate any phenomena that would necessitate such a being.
Examples of this?
But "dark matter" is just a name for any of these Maaaaaany "explanations." Nobody's attributing any intentionality or qualities not already observed to it.
The fact that invisible things might exist is not evidence for God. There is more to a God-claim than intangibility.