Life From Dirt?

[Astrophile]

If science comes up with naturalistic answers for the origins of life and the universe how would it be anything other than speculation of what happened.
The answers should be "If a creator/ God did not do it, then we think it might have happened this way".

Naturalistic hypotheses for the origins of life and the universe are more than speculation if they make testable predictions about what should be observed if the hypotheses are correct. For example, the Big Bang hypothesis for the origin of the universe (published in 1948) predicted that there should be a background of redshifted radiation from the hot early stage of the universe. This prediction was fulfilled by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965. Can the hypothesis of a creator or a god make similar testable predictions?

 

[Astrophile]

When it come to what science has really found to be fact that is not set in concrete either even if skeptics might like to think it is. So imo I don't need to accept what science says about evolution as 100% fact, because imo it is not.

How much of what science says about evolution are you willing to accept? 90%, 80%, 50%, 10%, 5%, 1%? What specific parts of the scientific account of evolution do you reject, and for what reasons?

 

[YoursTrue]

Naturalistic hypotheses for the origins of life and the universe are more than speculation if they make testable predictions about what should be observed if the hypotheses are correct. For example, the Big Bang hypothesis for the origin of the universe (published in 1948) predicted that there should be a background of redshifted radiation from the hot early stage of the universe. This prediction was fulfilled by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965. Can the hypothesis of a creator or a god make similar testable predictions?

Is that different from the possibility of something coming from nothing?

 

[YoursTrue]

How much of what science says about evolution are you willing to accept? 90%, 80%, 50%, 10%, 5%, 1%? What specific parts of the scientific account of evolution do you reject, and for what reasons?

If only you can show proof (I know there is none is science, but anyway...) life stemming, shall we say, from what is considered abiogenesis, maybe it would be irrefutably considered.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I don't have any evidence like you have or may be suggesting.
I believe in non human spirits and in human spirits. I don't know how much human spirits might be allowed to roam on the earth after death because I believe most of them end up in sheol/hades the place of the dead spirits until the resurrection and those who die in Christ, go to be with the Lord and then also are resurrected when Jesus returns.
When I speak of evidence for God and the supernatural I am referring to people like yourself and to the experiences of people in the Bible and to nature and that it seems to be designed.

Thank you for your response, Brian. I appreciate it.

I believe that there are earthbound human spirits wandering around and that these spirits can travel at will between the spirit world and the physical world through spirit portals and spiritual vortexes. I also believe, however, that some of these spirits can get stuck in the physical world, and they need a psychic medium to help them cross over (see here for a further explanation). I believe that there are earthbound human spirits because of the experiences I've had since I was a small child. I've been to places where there are more of the dead than there are of the living. I'm not afraid, though, because seeing, hearing, interacting with, and feeling their presence is natural to me. I'm so used to it that I don't think much of it sometimes, unless they want to interact with me.

 

[Brian2]

A chemical origin involves known and observable mechanisms, and extensive empirical evidence. Goddidit! is an unevidenced claim of magic.

What are the origins of the mass produced car?
Mechanisms of chemistry, electricity and metallurgy etc or Henry Ford?
Both answers are true.

 

[Brian2]

No. There are clear factual and historical claims made by the Bible that are demonstrably wrong. No interpretation needed.

There are also clear contradictions. There are also additions, deletions and edits, and most of the miracle claims would be laughed out of any court in the land.

The errors etc in the Bible and the historical mistakes have been greatly exaggerated imo.

 

[Brian2]

True -- nor does it need to. Non-existence is presumed, pending evidence. Non-existence is the epistemic default. We start with a blank slate, and add only what has evidence of existence.
Science does not show the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, either.

There is no evidence for a spaghetti monster, anywhere. There is evidence for a creator God but it is just evidence that science cannot use.
So basically you are demanding scientific evidence and OK that is the way you think and see reality but it is not the be all and end all of thinking and reality and humanity,,,,,,,,,,,, and even if God created everything and put the laws of nature in place, God is not governed by them, not my God at least.

So God doesn't exist, or do you have some novel conception of "part of the creation?"

Huh?

Huh? Explain, SVP.

Huh?

OK, so what is this "evidence in nature," that the experts on nature haven't noticed?

I think everyone has noticed that nature looked designed.

Evidence in God's revelation? The Vedas? The Quran? The Guru Granth Sahib? Before such a claim can be considered, you'll first have to establish that God exists, what His revelation is, and why it's valid.

So before I can present evidence for God I first need to establish that God exists?

You're basing your whole belief system on completely unsupported premises.

Supported by what?

 

[Brian2]

It's entirely subjective and without rational or empirical support? So why should anyone believe it? Its support and truth-value are precisely equal to the delusory claims of psychotics in mental hospitals. How is subjective belief distinguishable from delusion?

Modern skeptical approach to history has trashed the historical value of the Bible for many and has turned a presumption that the supernatural is not true into historical fact that the Bible is BS.
It's a bit like you wanting the existence of God to be proven before the Biblical evidence can be seen to support the existence of God.
But prophecy in the Bible still supports the existence of God and the prophecy is still being fulfilled and nobody can do anything about that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Beyond reasonable doubt this was designed.

It's not a matter of verification, it is just self evident to me. That does not mean it is self evident to others, but the evidence for design is super powerful imo and from many things in nature.
It is beyond reasonable doubt.

What I see is beyond any possible reasonable doubt that cells and their workings described here are a result of natural processes. Simply describing these cells does not conclude anything other than simply describing the cells. I know the biology behind this and evolution involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

I figured as much. Why do you ask?

You keep selectively citing him because of his beliefs, not meaningful I believe in God and evolution. So what?!?!!?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure what you mean by tenets.
Different people have different expectations so I can't answer for everyone.
For me, if I follow what I perceive God is saying and good comes from it them I am further convinced.
If it seems God is answering prayers I am further convinced.
If I see answers to questions where I thought none existed, I am further convinced.

I am sorry, I misread your post. You said "subjective" and I thought that you meant objective. Subjective testing is next to worthless. You would have to show that it was not just confirmation bias.

 

[shunyadragon]

Modern skeptical approach to history has trashed the historical value of the Bible for many and has turned a presumption that the supernatural is not true into historical fact that the Bible is BS.

Contemporary academic history does not trash the historical value of the Bible nor make any judgements that the supernatural claims are not true. Academic history is simply neutral concerning the supernatural beliefs and legitimately cannot consider them factual history regardless of whether they are claimed to occur thousands of years ago or yesterday, We have been over this several rimes before and I cited references as to how academic history deals with miracles. They simply record them as religious beliefs in terms of religious history. To do any differently would be to require academic history to endorse on religion over another, The Bible is not considered any differently than any other ancient religious or other ancient texts.

It's a bit like you wanting the existence of God to be proven before the Biblical evidence can be seen to support the existence of God.
But prophecy in the Bible still supports the existence of God and the prophecy is still being fulfilled and nobody can do anything about that.

No

 

[shunyadragon]

Is that different from the possibility of something coming from nothing?

Science does not remotely propose something comes from absolute nothing. Contemporary science considers the well supported hypothesis that the boundless Quantum World underlies all of our physical existence, and absolute nothing never existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how the story can be translated as a local flood and you've never provided sufficient argument demonstrating such.
It clearly is a story about a global flood, in all aspects.

Some people are torn because their personal religious beliefs go against what they know to be factually true. So they need to make up ways to get their religious beliefs to match reality. Often it is due to childhood indoctrination. That stuff can warp one's mind. It may also be because they can see that religious beliefs are not built upon stone. They are built on the sand that they accuse the beliefs of others to be built upon. Once one starts to pick at the Bible the whole thing tends to unravel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a bit like you wanting the existence of God to be proven before the Biblical evidence can be seen to support the existence of God.
But prophecy in the Bible still supports the existence of God and the prophecy is still being fulfilled and nobody can do anything about that.

Not even close. You are not applying constant and reasonable standards. You need to apply the same standards towards the prophecies of the Bible that you apply to the prophecies of other religions.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no evidence for a spaghetti monster, anywhere. There is evidence for a creator God but it is just evidence that science cannot use.

There is no objective evidence for God, but the spaghetti monster is hiding out at Antonio's Italian Restaurant.

So basically you are demanding scientific evidence and OK that is the way you think and see reality but it is not the be all and end all of thinking and reality and humanity,,,,,,,,,,,, and even if God created everything and put the laws of nature in place, God is not governed by them, not my God at least.

IF God exists God determined the Natural Laws and natural processes that science objectively observes.

I think everyone has noticed that nature looked designed.

No nature does not appear designed. It appears very natural.

The Ponte das Barcas bridge appeared designed, but it collapsed and killed 4,000 people.

So before I can present evidence for God I first need to establish that God exists?

You simply cannot present objective evidence for the existence of God.

Supported by what?

Suspenders.

 

[shunyadragon]

What are the origins of the mass produced car?

Mass car producers

Mechanisms of chemistry, electricity and metallurgy etc or Henry Ford?
Both answers are true.

Yes so what?!?!?! Ford has a reputation of producing poorly designed cars. Fix Or Repair Daily.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mass car producers

Yes so what?!?!?! Ford has a reputation of producing poorly designed cars. Fix Or Repair Daily.

I thought that was Fiat. Fix It Again Tony.

 

[ratiocinator]

Is that different from the possibility of something coming from nothing?

Do you mean literally nothing in the 'philosophical' sense or nothing as in as close to nothing as natural laws allow?

If the former, then nobody thinks it happened. If the latter, then there are indeed good reasons (hypotheses) to say that it is certainly possible, but there are many, many other possibilities that don't involve nothing at all.

Certainly there cannot really be a time at which nothing existed because (space-)time isn't nothing.

The "something coming from nothing" seems to be based on being unable to get your head out of the pre-20th century view of time. To be fair, some atheists seem to be stuck there too.

I keep on pointing these things out, but many theists still come up with this "something coming nothing" mantra, which is simplistic at best, and certainly ignores the many other hypotheses. And, of course, even if you reject the many scientific ideas, we could still make endless other fantastical stories that don't involve your god, or any gods at all....