Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How so?
-
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!
God is disproven by science? Really?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
They can change people's lives. Whether you want to believe that or not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And that is not a reliable source just because you believe in it when it comes to scientific questions. If you want to use it in a scientific discussion as a source then you would need to be able to shown that it is reliable.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? Irrational beliefs can often change peoples' lives too. A change in one's life is not evidence that an idea is rational.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
That's fine.
I've read some of his posts and IMO he's either trolling (unlikely) or has "issues". I have a policy where I do not try and debate people with such "issues".
Here are the questions I asked you....
Are you aware that the term "Big Bang" was initially intended to mock the idea, because some atheistic cosmologists didn't necessarily like how it supported the theistic belief that our universe had a beginning?
Are you aware that the Big Bang was first seen as an appeal to theism?
Why is it impossible for the first life forms to sustain themselves without God?
If God isn't controlling everything and isn't personally assembling every molecule in the universe, then the idea that chemistry happens all on its own shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
Do you believe God personally assembled all the water, land, and air molecules that were created before Genesis?
Why isn't it possible that after God spoke, the first organisms on earth formed on their own?
Are you aware that the Big Bang was first seen as an appeal to theism?
Why is it impossible for the first life forms to sustain themselves without God?
If God isn't controlling everything and isn't personally assembling every molecule in the universe, then the idea that chemistry happens all on its own shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
Do you believe God personally assembled all the water, land, and air molecules that were created before Genesis?
Why isn't it possible that after God spoke, the first organisms on earth formed on their own?
There 3 billion base pairs of amino acids in the human genome. So I think it is much more logical to believe it did not just happen by itself
It is for me. So good luck with whatever you believe or don't believe.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Since we have a mechanism that explains that evidence that supports that mechanism and since there is no evidence for magic I would say that the answer is yes.
Rational beliefs are based upon reliable evidence. Objective evidence.
ElishaElijah
Return
No
Because He is the one who holds everything together, there is no life apart from God. There would be no life form without God, no molecules, nothing.
Didn’t I already answer the last 3?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You might have a belief, but you claiming it to be rational and not being able to support that claim makes it a self refuting claim.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a belief that puts a burden of proof upon you. If you cannot support it then it is the same as stating that one sock picked out of a pile of one hundred in a pitch black room is argyle.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
The term "Big Bang" came from atheist physicist Fred Hoyle, whu coined the term as an attempt to ridicule the idea because he thought it was based on people's desire to support belief in gods.
So your earlier comment about the Big Bang coming from atheists and such isn't consistent with it's history.
Is that true for all life forms, including things like the malaria parasite?
Nope.
Last edited:
ElishaElijah
Return
I said the Big Bang is a ridiculous concept supported by atheists on these threads, the origin was never mentioned by me just that it was a “guess” touted as a fact by people on these threads.
Yes
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
If a belief can't be demonstrated to be true, then how can you be rationally justified in believing it?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Why? We know chemicals come together naturally and interact all the time.
ElishaElijah
Return
God made the laws governing chemistry to happen so no not on its own.
Not sure how He created these but probably spoke them into existence.
The answer to the last question is the same as the 2nd one.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You may be missing the point. There's no need to tie the Big Bang to atheism (given what I explained). It's no more atheistic than the theory that matter is made up of atoms.
Do you say that because you've thoroughly looked into the science and found it lacking, or because it conflicts with your religious beliefs?
That's really interesting. You believe that God is deliberately and intentionally acting to ensure that the malaria parasite can continue to exist and kill millions of people (in addition to all the other parasites, pathogens, pests, etc. that haunt our existence).
That seems pretty evil to me. If a person did that we would immediately label them a bio-terrorist.
I'm granting you that. My point is, if God set up the laws of chemistry but doesn't personally assemble each and every molecule in the universe, then why couldn't the first life forms on earth have come about by those laws of chemistry?
What do you base that on?
ElishaElijah
Return
No and it’s the scientists who admit it’s a guess and use phrases like could have, may have, possibly. The theory doesn’t work anywhere other than to say the universe is expanding. This is an observation.
I don’t but do you believe the ones responsible are evil ?
I don’t believe those laws that chemistry can assemble themselves and a life form that resulted in the world we live in, you’ll have to elaborate more on your line of reasoning, has this ever happened in our world and if so what was the result?
His account in Genesis.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, they never did any such thing. You misunderstood a nonscientific article and why do you oppose honest language?
Now you are contradicting yourself and implying that you are evil. Not the best tactic to use.
No one cares what you believe, what matters is what you know. And like it or not there is evidence for abiogenesis. There is no evidence for your beliefs.
What makes you think that that is God's account? Are you going to violate the Commandment against making false idols again?`
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So if you haven't thoroughly examined the science behind the big bang, then your claims about that science aren't really meaningful, are they? It's no different than someone who's never read the Bible making claims about what's in the Bible.
But given how you haven't examined the actual science, it's not an informed observation.
You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you told me that God ensures the continued existence of living organisms, and without God doing that, no organisms could continue to live. Now you seem to be saying that's not the case.
If the malaria parasite can continue to exist without God's intervention, why couldn't the first life forms on earth have done the same?
And I don't believe anyone is responsible for the emergence of the malaria parasite.
Because that conflicts with your religious beliefs, right?
If you're asking whether we've seen living organisms emerge from non-living components (in the sense of abiogenesis), then the answer is no, we haven't. As I said earlier, the origin of life on earth remains a mystery. That's why scientists continue to research it.
Where specifically in Genesis does it say anything about the creation of earth, land, and water before Genesis?