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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Maybe your argument is as useless in a human debate as $50 would be to a dog and therefore received it's due. I recommend you repeat this experiment with me and compare results. Want a PO Box? Will that be cash or certified check?
I see no target which may be peed on. You have literally not supplied anything worthy of even this honor. In fact you have provided nothing in the way of a meaningfull input at all. Before an argument can be dismissed, there first has to be one. Sniping comments from the safety of the bushes, a case does not make. If you wish to comment on actual science or theology instead of body waste, since I am bored I may have the 5 minutes available to render it null.
Entropy dictates maximum dispersal of energy and matter. This does introduce something I had not thought of before but it certainly is no help to a contraction. Maximum Entropy allows for no force (energy) to exist to change the state things exist in to be possible. However let's state this a different way to illustrate the futility of these curve balls you are throwing. Your side and probably you as well generally make arguments (when convenient anyway) that are minimalist when discussing evidence for God but use the most liberal fantasy methods when discussing what is claimed to be true if it in any way can be tortured to the point it might tend against God. I would suggest that in most cases and this one as well, that a Buddha (middle road) approach is reasonable. What do we KNOW or have good reason to believe is reliably indicated about the cosmos? It is a very reasonable statement to see everything flying apart at an increasing rate and to suggest first it had a finite past and second there is nothing currently observable that gives any reason to think it will retract into an atom sized package (I believe in a Big bang type thing but the claim all matter was concentrated in an atom sized space is about the hardest thing to accept possible if God is not involved) and start the process again. You literally an incomprehensible amount of matter occupied the atom sized space but God is just too far for you I guess. There are in fact very simple and very solid reasons to think that is not even a good theoretical possibility of contraction. I am sure I listed them here somewhere. If you want to go beyond that then you are operating on the extreme edge of reasoning and are no longer in the Buddha range. What I wish could be established first is a system that guarantees the same standard is used for God as against God. IN summary what is consistent with God about the cosmos is based on reliable theory and many obvious facts, what is used to counter God lies in the extreme end of the speculation range. I would not say things in that range are definitely wrong but hardly useful in a discussion like this.
I do not remember giving a list of issues but you may proceed however you wish. However I do not regard fantasy or science fictional guesses to be a valid counter to a very simple principle or concept. IOW if I said where did that wrench come from? If you respond that hypothetical alien employess at snap on used slave labor on Multar to build and send them by fed ex through a worm hole, is not an answer and the contention is unaffected. What is a Gish gallop? There is no answer to that question that could possibly be serious.
An extremely accurate representation of your posts...
Not exactly. My statements were an effort to show that RELIABLE science is consistent with God and that the "science" used to combat God, all lies in an extremely hypothetical unreliable realm of fantastic guesses. String theory, oscillating universe, or multiverses are all, almost fantasy. String theory is on the way out, modern reliable cosmology makes oscillating universes extremely improbable but hypothetically possible I guess, and multi verses not only have no evidence at all they have no potentiality for any. I was saying let's stay within the bounds of things that are likely true. If a bunch of Bronze Age liars invented God then it should be readily apparent within reliable science. It isn't. In fact the opposite is the case.
I disagree. Just kidding.
Physics can't begin to exist by physics, outside of the mind of someone who has a PhD in faith based guessing and fantasy. The rationality in the universe can't have made itself. Natural law is causally impotent. The only known source for rationality and information is mind. You can't get any physics to prove anything, without a creator. I claim every atom, principle, and law is consistent with God. I have no need to shove God into a place nothing else can fit and where he has been all along. I was pretty sure physics was not the reason you reject God long before you said so.
Evidence for faith? What? Sure, there's evidence that faith exists, but no evidence that it's justified (in the case of the existence of gods).
I have no desire or need to equate science with religion even though they are both faith based and have been composed of Christians to a very large extent. In fact I spend lots of time distinguishing the two. No there has never been life created in a lab. If there was it would be the greatest discovery ever. The most famous example created amino acids only. If you assign the complexity of amino acids a 2 then life would have a complexity factor of several trillion. There are countless examples of lower than equilibrium complexity arising out of chance there is not one example of higher then equilibrium. Take a trillion piece jigsaw puzzle and break it up completely. Put it in a bag and shake it up. From time to time you may get two or even three pieces to come together correctly but long before you get the fourth or fifth the previous 3 break up. So you never get a hundred much less a trillion. What they did in the lab was get 2 or three pieces to form not the trillion necessary. Abiogenesis is referred to as a law in biology. The defanition of a law is something that has no known exceptions. You can prove me wrong be quoting the statement from a peer reviewed paper where they actually made life. However that simply shows that it took intelligence to create life. Until you post this the question is academic. Good luck.
I do not care where he is in your book. He is one of the most respected chemists in modern times. Even the God hating poster boy for biology and Atheism knows life did not come from non life. That is why his response is always that aliens must have seeded life on Earth which does not solve anything. It just kicks the can down the road and puts the problem on another planet. There is far less evidence that aliens are real than for God being real yet he rejects God and assumes aliens exist and it does not even help abiogenesis even if he was right. That is not science that is faith based preference. By that silly logic I can claim that no evolutionist can be used for evolution. Even if a young earth could be shown to be false, and it can't, not to say I believe in a young earth, that has nothing at all to do with evolution and the chemical evolution it depends on and that he comments on. You can yell bias all you want but until you counter his arguments it is meaningless. Until you show how the 12 billion bits of information needed for the simplest life appeared in the right order by natural law these false claims are pointless.
No it does not and no you have not. I do not get this. I even quoted from the examples you gave where they specifically said they did no such thing. What the heck are you talking about. Post one quote from a peer reviewed journal recording the creation from life by natural law. The entire food industry is built around the fact that life will never ever arise on its own. I am getting the impression you did not even read the examples you gave. THEY HAVE NEVER MADE LIFE IN A LAB FROM NON LIFE.
I see as yet no evidence you have any idea what faith, evidence, the scientific method means or what science has done. Until you can get a handle on what truth is as it concerns science and what it has done then the comments you make about faith are irrelevant. I will await your post proving life has been created from non-life before I bother clearing up additional errors on your part.
The most prominent modern cosmology posits a single finite universe that began 14 or so billion years ago and will never begin again. An actual infinite is a logical absurdity. All claims that the universe oscillates, or that time is eternal, or that there is more than one universe are based on drastically less reliable data than the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem and the rest of the cosmology that all suggests that what we see is all that exists and is finite. You can believe what you wish and you may be right but at this time you are not going with the most reliable science. Natural infinites are almost fantasy.
