I can prove God in 10 words..

[Evamorgana]

hmmmmm interesting......... we need a scientist.

 

[YmirGF]

hmmmmm interesting......... we need a scientist.

Correction. You need an education. Hopefully, it's not too late.

 

[Valjean]

If life can't arise from non-life, then how do you explain the observable fact that there is life, Trubeauty? Has it always been there? If not, then what mechanism created it and why is that mechanism a more reasonable explanation than any of science's abiogenic hypotheses?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If life cannot come from "dead material," then how was it that according to Genesis, dirt was taken from the ground and man was created? And later, a rib from man was used to create woman?
But the big bang theory doesn't explain how everything got here. It only explained how the universe as we know it came to be. It does not prove or disprove God.
Darwinism explains how species evolve to better survive their environment through the process called natural selection. Again, this does not prove or disprove God.
Modern science, that is a very broad term. Modern science covers everything from physics, biology, the mind, the cosmos, and everything else. However, not one form of science proves or disproves God. Scientists don't care. Scientist set out to learn about, understand, and figure out the physical world in which we live. While some religious mythos do end up getting disproved by science. But as for the concept of God, science isn't concerned with it.

 

[Forkie]

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR DEAD MATTER TO PRODUCE LIFE

Big Bang can't explain it..
Charles Darwin can't explain it..
Modern day science can't explain it..

Atheists, please explain it..

A quick internet search produces this paragraph:

Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

The absence of the knowledge of the beginning of life, does not prove God. If science can't explain something, you need to do better science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm still waiting for that 10 word proof.

 

[Magic Man]

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR DEAD MATTER TO PRODUCE LIFE

Big Bang can't explain it..
Charles Darwin can't explain it..
Modern day science can't explain it..

Atheists, please explain it..

How did dead matter produce your god's life?

 

[Onkara]

How did dead matter produce your god's life?

Thats a good point, mball1297. In Hindu Philsoophy it is called "infinite regress" i..e one needs to avoid infinite regress as it is absurd. For example if there was not a creator or a single thing from which all else came, otherwise you just keep going back and back and back, creating more fictious entities from which creation came.

Even the big-bang needed to occur in soemthing or from something, so the regression stops with the big bang. For Trubeauty it stops with God, the entity before a bigbang or creation. The problem in my opinion is that some people argue there is no proof for a God, but there is proof of creation and so a big-bang is more imaginable than God. Others say God is the only explanation as even a big-bang needed a cause. This is the point of the OP imho, for input on that.

If you (the reader) can think of a better way to overcome this I would be pleased to read it.

 

[MSizer]

their's nothing vague about it.. it is scientifically impossible for any mixture of elements to create a single breath of life...

Absolutely False. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272710

...their is no element for the human soul

Do you think we're so stupid as to not have thought of this before? There is no element for the human soul because it does not exist. The "soul" you think exists is the action of your brain. The mind is what the brain does.

You don't understand the concept of life. Life is not a substance, it's an action. There is no element for an action because it isn't a physical thing. When you throw a ball, do you have to build your throw out of elements? No, it's the action of elements that already exist. That's why your throw no longer exists anymore once you're finished doing it. Exactly the same way your life no longer exists once you're finished doing it (when you die).

Not only that, but even if you were right that life couldn't be triggered by simple matter (which, of course, as shown above, you were not) you have provided no argument to suggest the existence of god. Even if you were right, you didn't provide a single form of evidence to show what did cause life, yet you made the cross canyon leap to "god did it".

Sorry, you'll have to try again, but next time you might want to come much better equipped.

 

[Magic Man]

Thats a good point, mball1297. In Hindu Philsoophy it is called "infinite regress" i..e one needs to avoid infinite regress as it is absurd. For example if there was not a creator or a single thing from which all else came, otherwise you just keep going back and back and back, creating more fictious entities from which creation came.

Even the big-bang needed to occur in soemthing or from something, so the regression stops with the big bang. For Trubeauty it stops with God, the entity before a bigbang or creation. The problem in my opinion is that some people argue there is no proof for a God, but there is proof of creation and so a big-bang is more imaginable than God. Others say God is the only explanation as even a big-bang needed a cause. This is the point of the OP imho, for input on that.

If you (the reader) can think of a better way to overcome this I would be pleased to read it.

So, do you want to talk about what started the universe or what started life? They are two very different things.

 

[Forkie]

You don't understand the concept of life. Life is not a substance, it's an action. There is no element for an action because it isn't a physical thing. When you throw a ball, do you have to build your throw out of elements? No, it's the action of elements that already exist. That's why your throw no longer exists anymore once you're finished doing it. Exactly the same way your life no longer exists once you're finished doing it (when you die).

I'd just like to say bravo. This point was very well presented. I was thinking of the exact same concept but for some reason couldn't put my thought into words!

Well said that man.

 

[Onkara]

So, do you want to talk about what started the universe or what started life? They are two very different things.

How does one seperate life from creation? Is not life part of creation as a whole (the universe), even if it is chemical?

 

[MSizer]

How does one seperate life from creation? Is not life part of creation as a whole (the universe), even if it is chemical?

How can you not see the difference. They're simply not the same thing. Is a pebble alive? (answer: no). Before birds and bees were rocks and gas.

 

[Man of Faith]

Great post. This is the Achilles heel of evolution. Even though the ToE doesn't try to explain how life came from non-life, those that accept the ToE and are atheists have this problem, whether they want to admit it or not.

The Miller/Urey experiment was a failure because it showed that life cannot come from non-life when there is oxygen in the air and life cannot be sustained when there isn’t oxygen in the air.

 

[MSizer]

...It is down to perception, which is as much philosophical as emperical for some people.

Yes, impirical for those who are correct, and philisophical for those who are mistaken.

 

[MSizer]

Great post. This is the Achilles heel of evolution. Even though the ToE doesn't try to explain how life came from non-life, those that accept the ToE and are atheists have this problem, whether they want to admit it or not.

The Miller/Urey experiment was a failure because it showed that life cannot come from non-life when there is oxygen in the air and life cannot be sustained when there isn’t oxygen in the air.

Consider evolution destroyed! (for the hundreth time no less!)

And now, onto that riduculous belief people have that the earth is a sphere! Let's prove to them how our theory of flat earth is the only logical possibility!

I mean seriously, when was the last time you threw a ball and it hit you in the back of the head?

 

[Magic Man]

How does one seperate life from creation? Is not life part of creation as a whole (the universe), even if it is chemical?

Yes, life is a part of the universe. A DVD drive is part of my computer, but they were created separately and at separate times. I don't understand why you're asking. Are you trying to say that life and the universe are the same thing?

 

[Magic Man]

Great post. This is the Achilles heel of evolution. Even though the ToE doesn't try to explain how life came from non-life, those that accept the ToE and are atheists have this problem, whether they want to admit it or not.

What problem? You mean the same problem theists have?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR DEAD MATTER TO PRODUCE LIFE

Big Bang can't explain it..
Charles Darwin can't explain it..
Modern day science can't explain it..

Atheists, please explain it..

A few thoughts:

- as has been pointed out, your assumptions are incorrect.

- God isn't the default option. Even if you were to somehow disprove evolution or abiogenesis, you'd still have to demonstrate that the explanation is God and not some other naturalistic mechanism.

- is your God alive or dead? Either one creates problems for your claim.

 

[Forkie]

- is your God alive or dead? Either one creates problems for your claim.

Beautiful. :yes: