Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

[exchemist]

Does all this chemistry mean that there was no creator or even that there was no need for a creator and life giver?

No.

P.S. Science has nothing to say one way or another about whether there may be a creator.

I must say I've never understood why, out of all the wonders of creation, creationists always focus on life. Maybe because how it began remains one of the most elusive goals of science: as yet we have no theory of abiogenesis, just some bits of the jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Brian2]

Was it a cartoon?
Simple polymers like nucleic acids form spontaneously under the right conditions. This has been observed many times and is well known.

No it was not a cartoon and DNA is not simple polymers.
Actually some people say that the collection of information, as in DNA requires an intelligence behind it.

This argument has long been debunked. Do you understand the problem with it?

I have heard that a problem with it is that a clock is not organic and so had to be made but nature around could conceivably have made itself.

"What is an "effect in science?"
The definitive features of life are controversial. The line between life and non-life is somewhat arbitrary.
What essential features do you think define life?

OK life is defined by it's effects. It causes growth and reproduction,,,,,,,,,,,and no doubt other things. Whatever the full list is, these are the features that define life.

Yes. Spontaneous generation has been debunked, and that's what "life comes from life" refers to. Abiogenesis is a bit more complicated.

Spontaneous generation is that life comes from non life. It was thought that maggots grew from dead meat (spontaneously generated) and so that was tested and shown to be wrong. Thus came the scientific idea that life comes from preexisting life.

Both religion and science posit that life came from non-life, but sciences proposes an observable, familiar, testable mechanism. Religion, on the other hand, proposes magic -- never observed and quite untestable.
Which is more credible?

Religion posits that an intelligence designed and enabled it to come together and work. Science shows that it certainly is taking intelligence and ingenuity to figure out how it could have happened without intelligence and ingenuity.
Science has reached the stage where it posits magic in that dead matter came to life and became conscious. I guess it takes stupid people like me to notice that the king has no clothes.
If science manages to make life let me know, but the trying will go on forever because many people don't like the alternative of a creator. But I choose the creator because there is evidence in history for Him and there is evidence in science and nature for Him.

 

[ChristineM]

Data from Near Death Experiences show us we are more than chemistry and have a spirit side/souls. That leaves open the possibility of the truth of angels also.

Please link to this data carried out by reputable neuroscientists.

MRI data shows an NSI is electrical activity in the brain

 

[ChristineM]

Surely the main evidence for many things that science tells us about the past is "there is no scientific evidence for a creator/life giver".
I sometimes wonder what scientific evidence for a God would look like.

If such evidence ever turned up then i can guarantee that an awful lot of atheists will want to see it and possibly even change their mind

It would of course also put an end to faith

 

[questfortruth]

It is obvious that methodological naturalism does not require atheism.

Read carefully: 1. METHODological 2. naturalism.
I am translating: the atheism (in the form of naturalism) is put as method.

 

[questfortruth]

If such evidence ever turned up then i can guarantee that an awful lot of atheists will want to see it and possibly even change their mind

It would of course also put an end to faith

God's name is Reason. He knows God and believes in God. God is not an atheist, the satan is the very first atheist. Check out the definition of faith in Wikipedia: it is faithfulness to knowledge: "I believe because I know."

 

[ChristineM]

God's name is Reason. He knows God and believes in God. God is not an atheist, the satan is the very first atheist. Check out the definition of faith in Wikipedia: it is faithfulness to knowledge: "I believe because I know."

And i know just as strongly that no god exists

Is that because there is no evidence to the contrary or a faithbas strong as yours, i am betting its both

 

[questfortruth]

And i know just as strongly that no god exists

There are two of them: the Holy Spirit and the evil spirit. One is God of Existence, hence - Life; other of Nonexistence, hence - Death. An atheist has chosen one, which has no existence and provides no existence to his followers. For example, Adolf Hitler has lost existence as a human but became a total nothingness - a zombie.

 

[gnostic]

What we currently know in science is that life can come only from preexisting life.

Yes, they do.

We call them “mother” and “father”.

Don’t tell me we have to have “the birds and the bees” talk? Aren’t you too old for such talk?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The atheism needs evidence, not theism.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim.
That claim being "angels and souls exist and are made from invisible matter".

Don't shift the burden of proof. Shfiting the burden of proof is dishonest. Not to mention a "tell" that you got nothing but make-belief.

Because the state of Europe in the Middle Ages was Eastern Orthodox Christianity. And nobody has given sufficient reason to change the Status Quo. It was the coup: the brutal force during the France Great Revolution, and not the mind of a Philosopher, which brought here the atheism.

Doesn't matter to the burden of proof, dude.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How would you categorize the words of an atheist: "there is no God"?

Not what atheism is.

Atheism is answering "i don't believe you" when the theist claims "there is a god".

You would answer: "it means, there is no evidence for God." Then atheism is a scientific method?

No. It means theists failed to meet their burden of proof. The atheist sees that as a reason to not accept the claim as sufficiently demonstrated to warrant belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism acts as if it is a scientific thing: "the Science has no evidence for God". Thus, atheism and science are the same thing. Logically! There is mathematical proof in the paper, please read it, the section "abrupt geodesics".

You make zero sense. As usual

 

[Brian2]

Please link to this data carried out by reputable neuroscientists.

MRI data shows an NSI is electrical activity in the brain

The data is the the stories people have of their NDEs, stories where reported facts can be verified and seem to show spiritual wanderings out of body during operations when the body is seen to be pretty much physically dead.

 

[ChristineM]

The data is the the stories people have of their NDEs, stories where reported facts can be verified and seem to show spiritual wanderings out of body during operations when the body is seen to be pretty much physically dead.

So no link then?

Stories are not evidence, as for facts, no, not facts but unverified stories that cannot be falsified

MRI taken during a NDE out of body experience

 

[PureX]

You are confusing radiation with energy, I think.

No, I'm not. The "Big Bang" was not an explosion

You are confusing radiation with energy, I think.

No, I'm not. The 'Big Bang' was not an explosion of matter, nor of 'radiation'. It was an explosion of energy, within which the laws that determined the array of quantum phenomena that then combined to form matter, space, motion, time, life, consciousness, and the universe as we experience it. And we still don't know what energy IS, what originated it, or why it expresses itself as it does.

 

[exchemist]

No, I'm not. The "Big Bang" was not an explosion
No, I'm not. The 'Big Bang' was not an explosion of matter, nor of 'radiation'. It was an explosion of energy, within which the laws that determined the array of quantum phenomena that then combined to form matter, space, motion, time, life, consciousness, and the universe as we experience it. And we still don't know what energy IS, what originated it, or why it expresses itself as it does.

Can you provide a source for any of these claims? I would like to see what they actually say.

But I repeat, energy is a property of a system, not a substance in its own right.

 

[viole]

Living invisible matter - soul, angels.

how much do they weigh?

ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

Certainly human life transcends cause and effect in the universe.

Life transcends cause and effect? WWhat does that mean, exactly?

Data from Near Death Experiences show us we are more than chemistry and have a spirit side/souls. That leaves open the possibility of the truth of angels also.

They show us no such thing, and there is certainly no reason to conclude that we have a soul from this experience. We experience consciousness, dreams and hallucinations, how is a near death experience any different, causally, from any of these experiences?

If it leaves open the possibility of angels, wouldn't it likewise leave open the possibility of Thor, Cthulu or faeries? These would be equally possible, no?

 

[questfortruth]

It means theists failed to meet their burden of proof.

Do you need scientific or unscientific? Science is atheism, so we can not provide a scientific one.

 

[questfortruth]

how much do they weigh?

ciao

- viole

The supernatural realm can not be measured.