Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[Subduction Zone]

It's kind of complicated. Because if nature itself can be blamed for anything you see as wrong or an injustice, then what? Do you think human nature can be improved so everything in life is fair and square, no sickness, no death, no war, no sadness? Let's pretend you say yes, eventually it can be that way. (I say no, it's not going to happen by virtue of man, not even the most brilliant scientist.) But let's say you say yes.

What? I think that you got everything backwards there.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, I know the "Big Bang" theory has little to do in your mind with the "ToE," but as the song goes, "nothing comes from nothing..." (lyrics from one of the songs from The Sound of Music) And that is what the "ToE" is all about. Nothing from something? that comes from ?? Yes, the ToE is built on the premise that -- a soupy mass came from -- um -- somewhere? maybe? Oh, another flying object maybe from an alien somewhere some time back?

King Lear said it earlier: 'Nothing will come of nothing: speak again' (I, i, 89). However, Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'A universe from nothing' (Simon & Schuster, 2012), so perhaps King Lear and Julie Andrews were wrong.

Regardless of how the universe began, the fact remains that it exists, and that the Earth is part of the universe, so there is nothing impossible in the hypothesis that a 'primordial soup' existed on the Hadean or Archaean Earth. In the same way, however life began, once it existed the chemistry of DNA ensured that it was bound to evolve.

 

[YoursTrue]

King Lear said it earlier: 'Nothing will come of nothing: speak again' (I, i, 89). However, Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'A universe from nothing' (Simon & Schuster, 2012), so perhaps King Lear and Julie Andrews were wrong.

Regardless of how the universe began, the fact remains that it exists, and that the Earth is part of the universe, so there is nothing impossible in the hypothesis that a 'primordial soup' existed on the Hadean or Archaean Earth. In the same way, however life began, once it existed the chemistry of DNA ensured that it was bound to evolve.

Yes, it's possible that there is a misunderstanding about nothing not coming from nothing. I started smiling when I see you think (or apparently agree) that it's not impossible for a primordial soup to have existed. Of course, that is something that cannot (now) be proved. But I will say that the conjecture is unlikely to have happened 'just like that.'
You bring up an interesting point then about the chemistry of DNA that happened as a result, as if it could be true, right? Whether a primordial soup existed is not really the issue. The issue is: is there a Creator that is above in intelligence (or creation) than humans or creation, and did this Creator create humans? See, that is the question. I now see no reason to believe why He did not.

 

[YoursTrue]

King Lear said it earlier: 'Nothing will come of nothing: speak again' (I, i, 89). However, Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'A universe from nothing' (Simon & Schuster, 2012), so perhaps King Lear and Julie Andrews were wrong.

Regardless of how the universe began, the fact remains that it exists, and that the Earth is part of the universe, so there is nothing impossible in the hypothesis that a 'primordial soup' existed on the Hadean or Archaean Earth. In the same way, however life began, once it existed the chemistry of DNA ensured that it was bound to evolve.

Besides which, let me know, perhaps I'll read Krauss's book: did he say that nothing comes or can come from nothing? What is nothing anyway?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it's possible that there is a misunderstanding about nothing not coming from nothing. I started smiling when I see you think (or apparently agree) that it's not impossible for a primordial soup to have existed. Of course, that is something that cannot (now) be proved. But I will say that the conjecture is unlikely to have happened 'just like that.'
You bring up an interesting point then about the chemistry of DNA that happened as a result, as if it could be true, right? Whether a primordial soup existed is not really the issue. The issue is: is there a Creator that is above in intelligence (or creation) than humans or creation, and did this Creator create humans? See, that is the question. I now see no reason to believe why He did not.

The evidence points only to evolution by natural causes. There is no reliable evidence for anything but that. That seems like a pretty good reason to believe that to me.

 

[rational experiences]

No one has to show anything to you to either prove or disprove God. One could easily turn all your thoughts around and tell you to do the proving. God is implied because science can not determine how a complicated code called life arose from nothingness.

Nothing.

No thing.

No consciousness. No thinking.

What arose in a space,?

Science says that is how a reaction passes into change.

A law of scientific forced reaction.

It is not nor never was a law of relativity.

Form existed first...then space. As change created the space.

 

[Astrophile]

The issue is: is there a Creator that is above in intelligence (or creation) than humans or creation, and did this Creator create humans? See, that is the question. I now see no reason to believe why He did not.

This is not a question that can be answered by the scientific method. However, the argument of Epicurus (341-271 BC), that the existence of evil is incompatible with the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent god, is strong evidence against the existence of such a god. Also, I would argue that no finite amount of evidence can prove the existence of an infinite god. Finally, my study of the Bible and my examination of the history of Christianity suggests that the Bible is not the word of God but entirely the work of human beings, that most of the Old Testament is myth, legend or historical fiction, and that the founders of Christianity were not the sort of people that I should like to meet outdoors at night.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is not a question that can be answered by the scientific method. However, the argument of Epicurus (341-271 BC), that the existence of evil is incompatible with the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent god, is strong evidence against the existence of such a god. Also, I would argue that no finite amount of evidence can prove the existence of an infinite god. Finally, my study of the Bible and my examination of the history of Christianity suggests that the Bible is not the word of God but entirely the work of human beings, that most of the Old Testament is myth, legend or historical fiction, and that the founders of Christianity were not the sort of people that I should like to meet outdoors at night.

Let's start at the beginning again, but this time the beginning of humans. According to the Bible, it relates the beginning. Of Adam and Eve. But since you don't believe in that, it's hard to discuss. However, I will try. According to the Bible, and I say this carefully, Adam and Eve had perfect genes. That is what I believe. That means that there was no flaw in them, physically or mentally. I will leave it at that until I hear from you. about that (perfect genes). I know you don't think it's possible, but I do.
Now I'm not sure though who you consider as the founders of Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's start at the beginning again, but this time the beginning of humans. According to the Bible, it relates the beginning. Of Adam and Eve. But since you don't believe in that, it's hard to discuss. However, I will try. According to the Bible, and I say this carefully, Adam and Eve had perfect genes. That is what I believe. That means that there was no flaw in them, physically or mentally. I will leave it at that until I hear from you. about that (perfect genes). I know you don't think it's possible, but I do.
Now I'm not sure though who you consider as the founders of Christianity.

Perfect genes does not help you. Do you understand the concept of a population bottleneck?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is not a question that can be answered by the scientific method. However, the argument of Epicurus (341-271 BC), that the existence of evil is incompatible with the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent god, is strong evidence against the existence of such a god. Also, I would argue that no finite amount of evidence can prove the existence of an infinite god. Finally, my study of the Bible and my examination of the history of Christianity suggests that the Bible is not the word of God but entirely the work of human beings, that most of the Old Testament is myth, legend or historical fiction, and that the founders of Christianity were not the sort of people that I should like to meet outdoors at night.

I believe there is more proof of the existence of God than not. And part of that is the recognition that the sun, moon, grass, cows, and humans did not just "come about" by themselves by some magnetic force pushing molecules and cells out or together. But life comes about only because of a Creator, who is from everlasting to everlasting. No beginning for this One, and no end. Can I explain him? No. I only know really to explain if I can what I observe and what the Bible says.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe there is more proof of the existence of God than not. And part of that is the recognition that the sun, moon, grass, cows, and humans did not just "come about" by themselves by some magnetic force pushing molecules and cells out or together. But life comes about only because of a Creator, who is from everlasting to everlasting. No beginning for this One, and no end. Can I explain him? No. I only know really to explain if I can what I observe and what the Bible says.

I agree with one.
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there is more proof of the existence of God than not. And part of that is the recognition that the sun, moon, grass, cows, and humans did not just "come about" by themselves by some magnetic force pushing molecules and cells out or together. But life comes about only because of a Creator, who is from everlasting to everlasting. No beginning for this One, and no end. Can I explain him? No. I only know really to explain if I can what I observe and what the Bible says.

Unfortunately this is a claim that you cannot even begin to support and those that oppose you can support their beliefs quite readily. This should tell you something.

 

[paarsurrey]

Unfortunately this is a claim that you cannot even begin to support and those that oppose you can support their beliefs quite readily. This should tell you something.

That could be decided on majority basis, of late, we are doing even "science" on majority basis, please. Right, please? #138

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

That could be decided on majority basis, of late, we are doing even "science" on majority basis, please. Right, please? #138

Regards

No, it has nothing to do with the majority. It has to do with evidence. Creationists do not appear to understand the concept. There is scientific evidence for only one side which is why the vast majority of scientists accept a natural cause. Those that oppose evolution and abiogenesis cannot seem to generate any evidence for their beliefs. The majority of scientists only do what scientist are supposed to do. They follow the evidence. The evidence leads, not the majority.

 

[Astrophile]

Let's start at the beginning again, but this time the beginning of humans. According to the Bible, it relates the beginning. Of Adam and Eve. But since you don't believe in that, it's hard to discuss. However, I will try. According to the Bible, and I say this carefully, Adam and Eve had perfect genes. That is what I believe. That means that there was no flaw in them, physically or mentally. I will leave it at that until I hear from you. about that (perfect genes). I know you don't think it's possible, but I do.

Can you quote book, chapter and verse where the Bible says that Adam and Eve had perfect genes? So far as I know, the Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve had perfect genes, or any genes at all; all it says is that everything that God had made was very good (Genesis 1:31). 'Very good' is not the same thing as 'perfect'. Something that is perfect cannot become bad; the mere possibility of its becoming bad detracts from its perfection. If God had made humans perfect, he would not have regretted having made them (Genesis 6:6), nor would every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts have been evil (Genesis 6:5).

Now I'm not sure though who you consider as the founders of Christianity.

I was thinking of the Apostolic Fathers and later Christians from the 2nd century onwards. However, St. Paul appears to have been a rather unpleasant person; in his letter to the Galatians he piles curses on people who teach a different gospel from his own, and in 2 Corinthians 11-13 he boasts of what he has gone through for the sake of Christ and is very violent against people who deny his claim to be an apostle. Of course, we have only Paul's side of the story; the writings of his opponents are lost, but I suppose that they were equally vehement in their condemnation of Paul. Look at it from the point of view of the readers of these letters; would you like it if anybody, either other Christians or atheists, spoke to you or about you in the terms that Paul uses in Galatians and 2 Corinthians?

 

[paarsurrey]

No, it has nothing to do with the majority. It has to do with evidence. Creationists do not appear to understand the concept. There is scientific evidence for only one side which is why the vast majority of scientists accept a natural cause. Those that oppose evolution and abiogenesis cannot seem to generate any evidence for their beliefs. The majority of scientists only do what scientist are supposed to do. They follow the evidence. The evidence leads, not the majority.

If the scientists follow evidence "religiously", then they should all be on one page and not talk of majority, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the scientists follow evidence "religiously", then they should all be on one page and not talk of majority, please? Right, please?

Regards

They of course do not follow evidence religiously. That would imply that they follow it without any thought. And some people will interpret evidence differently. Also scientists are human. Some cannot reason logically when an emotional belief is at stake. That is why the majority is sometimes useful. If one opposes the majority one should inspect one's reasoning to see if it is rational or not.

 

[paarsurrey]

They of course do not follow evidence religiously. That would imply that they follow it without any thought. And some people will interpret evidence differently. Also scientists are human. Some cannot reason logically when an emotional belief is at stake. That is why the majority is sometimes useful. If one opposes the majority one should inspect one's reasoning to see if it is rational or not.

I put the magenta^ in inverted commas. It meant strictly,faithfully and systematically with full devotion to science, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I put the magenta^ in inverted commas. It meant strictly,faithfully and systematically with full devotion to science, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

No. religiously does not mean that. That is why I objected to the terminology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The issue is: is there a Creator that is above in intelligence (or creation) than humans or creation, and did this Creator create humans?

Those are multiple questions formulated as one.
One of the questions embedded therein, is "were humans created". And the answer is "no. humans evolved".

Humans share biological ancestry with chimps. Further ancestors with gorilla's. Further ancestors still with orang utangs. Further still with the other primates. Further still with felines and canines and etc.
Further still with all mammals. Further still with all tetrapods. Further still with all vertebrates. And on and on.

These are genetic facts.
Humans, or any other species, demonstrably shares biological ancestry with other species and thus were not "separately created" without biological ancestry.

See, that is the question. I now see no reason to believe why He did not.

There's more then enough reason to know species weren't created though.
Ignorance is not an excuse (in the 21st century while having access to an internet capable device).