If a creator did produce life by magic, couldn't she have done that on another planet as well? What is it about intelligent design that prohibits design elsewhere in the universe?
-
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!
Building bocks, Chemicals and Life
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
If a creator did produce life by magic, couldn't she have done that on another planet as well? What is it about intelligent design that prohibits design elsewhere in the universe?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If out of space and time is no mass and no light first...then it's no female no male terms either.
Consciousness human is either male or female even if machines AI feedback causes you to believe you're a man but a woman. As you see observe your penis...is science. First.
It's why humans now identify with the most strangest of subjects. As scientists experiment in heavens as their new laboratory. So suddenly a human says I identify as a cat...science causing it.
Biology law says otherwise.
And we are now their new lab rats as they believe a humans thought as man consciousness is to think. And owns the reason why anything they study exists. As they say so.
As they studied all things falsely with machines...if you believe out of space time and light is first.... it's no machine used whatsoever. It can't exist either.
Hence as they say my study isn't a man or woman in theory first I must be correct now ... as you no longer recognise your own being.
Thesis says no machine is recognised either.
Congratulates the evilness of mens theisms.
What a science man liar is.
Consciousness human is either male or female even if machines AI feedback causes you to believe you're a man but a woman. As you see observe your penis...is science. First.
It's why humans now identify with the most strangest of subjects. As scientists experiment in heavens as their new laboratory. So suddenly a human says I identify as a cat...science causing it.
Biology law says otherwise.
And we are now their new lab rats as they believe a humans thought as man consciousness is to think. And owns the reason why anything they study exists. As they say so.
As they studied all things falsely with machines...if you believe out of space time and light is first.... it's no machine used whatsoever. It can't exist either.
Hence as they say my study isn't a man or woman in theory first I must be correct now ... as you no longer recognise your own being.
Thesis says no machine is recognised either.
Congratulates the evilness of mens theisms.
What a science man liar is.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Organic chemicals in outer space is not evidence for life there unless life has been shown to come from just chemicals.
It has not been shown to come from just chemicals. That is a hypothesis.
So anyway, you have no evidence for your beliefs unless you think that science only being able to study chemicals and physical processes is evidence that life is nothing but chemicals and physical processes.
You do claim to have no evidence against your belief.
So you fit the criteria for the argument from ignorance.
OTOH I have no evidence against my belief but have evidence for my belief that there needs to be a first life giver, the source of life. The evidence for it is that all life that science studies comes from other life.
It is understandable that science might want to find out if life can come from just chemicals and natural processes but it seems to be something that is not falsifiable even if science cannot produce life from chemicals for 10,000 years. The naturalistic methodology and I think occam's razor will demand science cuts out the supernatural and not assume an extra complication (God) unless necessary.
But of course there is evidence for a life giver.
And you will write back and say that I don't know what "evidence" is.
But that is not true. Evidence is all that stuff that you say is not evidence when it comes to God's existence.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Just had an activated coughing attack. Ended in body burn inside. Why I know...metal detectors in blood...a thesis... grown cells then human bio studies.
By science a man humans control. Who isn't any god a machine nor is he outside of space time. Unless he thinks he's the clear immaculate gas he wants in his new theory.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It seems to be an exception to say that all life we see comes from previously existing life, but the original life on earth did not come from previously existing life.
So an initial life giver is not the exception.
It seems like magical thinking to say that inanimate matter became animate, but it is proposed in science so how can it be magical thinking.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It doesn't prohibit design elsewhere in the universe.
But what I was arguing against was the materialist argument for life coming from chemicals only and so that means that probability tells us life will be elsewhere in the universe.
God's creating life elsewhere is not a matter of probability.
If God's creating life is not a matter of probability, then it seems that you ought to be completely agnostic on the question. You have no clue whether God created life elsewhere. Right?
Heyo
Veteran Member
We have evidence of chemicals spontaneously combining, in the lab as well as in the field.It seems to be an exception to say that all life we see comes from previously existing life, but the original life on earth did not come from previously existing life.
So an initial life giver is not the exception.
It seems like magical thinking to say that inanimate matter became animate, but it is proposed in science so how can it be magical thinking.
We don't have evidence of magical intervention into that process. We wouldn't even know how that intervention would occur.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As I said, you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to learn?Organic chemicals in outer space is not evidence for life there unless life has been shown to come from just chemicals.
It has not been shown to come from just chemicals. That is a hypothesis.
So anyway, you have no evidence for your beliefs unless you think that science only being able to study chemicals and physical processes is evidence that life is nothing but chemicals and physical processes.
You do claim to have no evidence against your belief.
So you fit the criteria for the argument from ignorance.
OTOH I have no evidence against my belief but have evidence for my belief that there needs to be a first life giver, the source of life. The evidence for it is that all life that science studies comes from other life.
It is understandable that science might want to find out if life can come from just chemicals and natural processes but it seems to be something that is not falsifiable even if science cannot produce life from chemicals for 10,000 years. The naturalistic methodology and I think occam's razor will demand science cuts out the supernatural and not assume an extra complication (God) unless necessary.
But of course there is evidence for a life giver.
And you will write back and say that I don't know what "evidence" is.
But that is not true. Evidence is all that stuff that you say is not evidence when it comes to God's existence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now this is an argument from ignorance again. You have no scientific evidence of "design". ID believers cannot even come up with a working definition of "design".
There is evidence for abiogenesis.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A
It's about theists behaviours only. Human behaviours not spaces behaviours. Thinking falsely with pre human motivations. For machines only.
Water and gas as compared to mass as an energy resource theory. First position life of a man. I want a large resources mass.
Water gas mass around earth isn't the portion mass he theories as he wants all of spaces.
History thought for a science man is his machine. Comes as science out of earths mass. The energy mass of any first scientists theory.
He has thoughts going all over the place lying. First mass energy of practice of man's science is earths mass. That mass itself man themes is a huge energy resource from space history.
Theist then does a pretend space thesis based on where he now wants the resource. So uses the sun machine UFO as his point. I want spaces resource. Greater than gods earth his sciences beginning to practice.
Yet he owns earth machines. Uses earth mass resources. Gets electricity out of earths masses.
He says as the theist my human life is not in mass nor out of mass. It came from the space that water owns as compared to mass. As I stand within waters space.
He says so it's missing mass. To be a space allowing my life to be inside it.
Water wasn't ever mass energy it's waters mass. He misquoted the use of words meanings to suit his thesis only.
Yet in science missing of mass was waters mass and as with mass energy itself as removal first. Why it gets consumed in first historic space position. Not as energy...in both body types. Energy and water mass. Removed in space.
So he's proven wrong.
As only earths pressures involving earths heavens pressures is where his bio life in a space waters is his life with term a body of space. Science.
As a man with the body he says allows his life to continue as a science statement only.
Life continuance human is by human sex not science.
Does he live as a human with microbiology floating at his side around and above him. Yes in waters space not outer space.
Isn't any type of out of space advice. His body virtually is mass in waters mass as just some minerals asides from water. As pressurised chemistry.
He doesn't do pressurised chemistry himself. He does reactive chemistry.
Hence in science he's compared the two variables about chemistry. Man is prepared to alter heavens natural pressures to prove himself wrong...no you aren't spatials creation exact in space history.
Extreme pressures only a suns mass could exert above us.
His claim is waters mass came from out of space and it began as a droplet small in space.
We arent water as mass first. Yet he says we are just droplets of water in life he compared. His comparing isn't even within any real law.
Natural existence is first highest coldest.
We are a biological small being owning a very small amount of water.
Volume mass is science not little bodies.
All studies are done by men Inside water as the total being a human only.Organic chemicals in outer space is not evidence for life there unless life has been shown to come from just chemicals.
It has not been shown to come from just chemicals. That is a hypothesis.
So anyway, you have no evidence for your beliefs unless you think that science only being able to study chemicals and physical processes is evidence that life is nothing but chemicals and physical processes.
You do claim to have no evidence against your belief.
So you fit the criteria for the argument from ignorance.
OTOH I have no evidence against my belief but have evidence for my belief that there needs to be a first life giver, the source of life. The evidence for it is that all life that science studies comes from other life.
It is understandable that science might want to find out if life can come from just chemicals and natural processes but it seems to be something that is not falsifiable even if science cannot produce life from chemicals for 10,000 years. The naturalistic methodology and I think occam's razor will demand science cuts out the supernatural and not assume an extra complication (God) unless necessary.
But of course there is evidence for a life giver.
And you will write back and say that I don't know what "evidence" is.
But that is not true. Evidence is all that stuff that you say is not evidence when it comes to God's existence.
It's about theists behaviours only. Human behaviours not spaces behaviours. Thinking falsely with pre human motivations. For machines only.
Water and gas as compared to mass as an energy resource theory. First position life of a man. I want a large resources mass.
Water gas mass around earth isn't the portion mass he theories as he wants all of spaces.
History thought for a science man is his machine. Comes as science out of earths mass. The energy mass of any first scientists theory.
He has thoughts going all over the place lying. First mass energy of practice of man's science is earths mass. That mass itself man themes is a huge energy resource from space history.
Theist then does a pretend space thesis based on where he now wants the resource. So uses the sun machine UFO as his point. I want spaces resource. Greater than gods earth his sciences beginning to practice.
Yet he owns earth machines. Uses earth mass resources. Gets electricity out of earths masses.
He says as the theist my human life is not in mass nor out of mass. It came from the space that water owns as compared to mass. As I stand within waters space.
He says so it's missing mass. To be a space allowing my life to be inside it.
Water wasn't ever mass energy it's waters mass. He misquoted the use of words meanings to suit his thesis only.
Yet in science missing of mass was waters mass and as with mass energy itself as removal first. Why it gets consumed in first historic space position. Not as energy...in both body types. Energy and water mass. Removed in space.
So he's proven wrong.
As only earths pressures involving earths heavens pressures is where his bio life in a space waters is his life with term a body of space. Science.
As a man with the body he says allows his life to continue as a science statement only.
Life continuance human is by human sex not science.
Does he live as a human with microbiology floating at his side around and above him. Yes in waters space not outer space.
Isn't any type of out of space advice. His body virtually is mass in waters mass as just some minerals asides from water. As pressurised chemistry.
He doesn't do pressurised chemistry himself. He does reactive chemistry.
Hence in science he's compared the two variables about chemistry. Man is prepared to alter heavens natural pressures to prove himself wrong...no you aren't spatials creation exact in space history.
Extreme pressures only a suns mass could exert above us.
His claim is waters mass came from out of space and it began as a droplet small in space.
We arent water as mass first. Yet he says we are just droplets of water in life he compared. His comparing isn't even within any real law.
Natural existence is first highest coldest.
We are a biological small being owning a very small amount of water.
Volume mass is science not little bodies.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I don't know if God created live elsewhere in the universe.
However as I said, we cannot tell if life is elsewhere just because there is life on earth. To say we can tell, is to say either that we know all things God has done or that we know that life comes from chemicals only and so the law of probability tells us that life started elsewhere also.
So I am not arguing either way about if there is life or not elsewhere. All I am doing is saying that we do not know and to say we do know is a statement of faith.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then you are still wrong since the only statement has been that there is evidence that life exists elsewhere in the universe. That is not even close to saying that we know it to be a fact.
Like I said, you do not appear to understand the concept of evidence.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Chemicals combine, yes.
We don't have evidence of magical intervention into that process, true.
So are you saying that life therefore had to have happened naturally and chemically?
There seems to be a big leap in logic there.
It is interesting that we would not know how that intervention would occur but you are willing to say that somehow unknown, inanimate chemicals did manage to become animate and conscious naturally.
Do you think that science can ignore that bit, the how it happened, and leave it as a possibly temporary unknown, but still claim that it happened naturally because science can only study chemicals and natural processes and must not allow the supernatural to enter into it if unneeded?
Has it been shown that the supernatural is unneeded for life to happen just because science cannot find evidence of God intervention?
Brian2
Veteran Member
I have shown you in DNA that there is evidence for ID there, but you don't seem to understand the concept of evidence as it relates to God, only as it relates to science. So you end up denying the evidence for God by saying it cannot be studied by science.
So that is on you and does not reflect on the evidence, whether it exists or not.
But tell me about this evidence for abiogenesis and show me it does not rely on the presumption that the naturalistic methodology is an absolute truth, iow that there is no life giver.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are using a strawman argument again, probably because your own beliefs are rather weak.
There is evidence for abiogenesis. There does not appear to be evidence for any sort of magical creation by a God. The rational act is to accept the scientific view.
By the way, scientific concepts are only taken as being provisionally true. In fact other words once an idea is well supported one accepts it until evidence is found to the contrary.
That is why the thread on "What would refute the theory of evolution?" was embraced by those that accept science. They were able to give all sorts of tests for the theory. The thread that I started that was designed to help creationists did not do so well with creationists. They could not find a possible test for creationism. Which means they showed that they did not have any evidence for creationism.
In the sciences one has to follow the evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How is DNA evidence for you?
I am not "denying evidence". You simply do not understand the concept.
And you are the one with the strawman of a presumption of no creator. That is not mine. You would have to prove that claim.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Theology is not the sciences.
I don't have to provisionally accept what science says just because science says it, until it is shown to be untrue.
I accept other evidence which you do not and so I can reject what science provisionally accepts.
You do know that science works with the presumption of no supernatural intervention.
You do know that science would not even know what to look for as a supernatural intervention.
But you seem to like the idea that lack of evidence for God in the sciences shows that God does not exist and that life must have come from chemistry and physical processes only.
Science does not claim that life comes only from natural processes. That hubris comes from atheists who misuse science to try to show that science is on their side and that theists are anti science.
Truth is that theists want true science and not the made up version that atheists push.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Correct, I was speaking of rational thought in general.
If you do not want to reason rationally no one can force you to. No one will even try to make you reason rationality. The most we can do is help.
And no, there is no need of such a presumption. Why do you think that there is?
Brian2
Veteran Member
We have been through the DNA one and I know that it is a subjective view for people who accept evidence other than what science can use. If you accept only science and evidence that science can use then you reject theological evidence probably. (Not that theology rejects true scientific evidence).
I don't have to prove the presumption of no creator. That is part of the philosophy of science, no injecting God unless the evidence tells us otherwise. God is not needed if the evidence does not show a God is involved. ( not that science knows what to look for in relation to this evidence for God)
So atheists often want to say that science has eliminated God because science knows scientific mechanisms. All it eliminated was the idea that God was there doing things supernaturally, it did not eliminate God or the need for God.
This of course could mean that God brought life about naturally, chemically and through natural processes, however at this stage it is nothing but wishful thinking and false science to say that science has shown that life came about through natural processes only.