Producing life from non living matter

[FearGod]

God is a personage. As generally conceived, he has self awareness, likes and dislikes, desires, intention, &c. He even has a sex. If he were an impersonal force, like gravity or magnetism, you wouldn't be ascribing intentionality to him.
Action without mechanism is magic. No mechanism is ascribed to God, He just creates, by his 'power'. That's magic.

Yes God is a conscious entity but not of our nature, what do you mean by God has sex?
not knowing how he creates doesn't mean magic, just we don't know how.

What evidence do you have for this?

God's message to humans.

I thought you were complaining that scientists were atheist. Now you say they believe in a creator entity?

Where did I say that scientists are atheists? I said that God's message is in agreement with
what scientists found out and observed.

Question: Who created God?

No escape from the first that's always existing and that is God.

 

[Valjean]

If you understood what real science has proved, you would understand that the TOE should start with once upon a time and end with they lived happily ever after. Your belief in the theology of evolution proves ignorance is bliss.

Is this to say that The ToE should start with abiogenesis?
Well, whether it should or not, it doesn't, as you know. Moreover, this would be like saying the study of metallurgy must start with the physics of supernovae, whence the metal originates.

Your acceptance by faith alone of whatever opinions evolution offers keeps you from having to think about what they say. Natural selection being a mechanism for a change of species. A mutation being the mechanism for a change of species A land animal becoming a sea creature.

But not many "evolutionists" accept evolution by faith alone. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming and multidisciplinary. No faith needed.

I'm not sure where you're going with the natural selection and mutations, and I could probably rattle off twenty or thirty living animals, in various stages of land-to-water transition, just off the top of my head.

Yes God is a conscious entity but not of our nature, what do you mean by God has sex?

Across cultures He's always anthropomorphized; always thought of as a he or she. We never talk about God as an 'it'. (no objections from Hindus, please. Brahman is not a "God.")

not knowing how he creates doesn't mean magic, just we don't know how.

A very scientific attitude, dismissing a supernatural explanation even if a natural explanation isn't immediately apparent. It makes me wonder why you still cling to this supernatural God concept

Fear God: God has no specific shape and doesn't belong to nature, as nature is created by him...
Valjean: What evidence do you have for this?
FG: God's message to humans.

And which message would this be: The Rig Veda? I-Ching sticks? A shaman's revelation under the influence of ayahuasca? The Guru Granth Sahib? Cracks in a shoulder blade? The entrails of a goat? The Quran? '' -- all are media of revelation. How should we assess them?

I said that God's message is in agreement with
what scientists found out and observed.

Again, which message?

If everything must have a cause, who/what caused God?

 

[sayak83]

Which ones? Be specific. Your OPINIONS of worthless.




If you understood what real science has proved, you would understand that the TOE should start with once upon a time and end with they lived happily ever after. Your belief in the theology of evolution proves ignorance is bliss.

Your acceptance by faith alone of whatever opinions evolution offers keeps you from having to think about what they say. Natural selection being a mechanism for a change of species. A mutation being the mechanism for a change of species A land animal becoming a sea creature.

I have demonstrated conclusively that evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories of science with lots of evidential support. I have also demonstrated conclusively in this thread that scientists have created living cells out of non living materials. Your denial of these two points are simple faith based irrational denialism. FACT NOT OPINION.

 

[ChristineM]

Do you call thinking as guessing?, I think guessing is to think this universe started by itself
and it happened that life originated on earth due to specific circumstances ...etc.

Don't you think it's guessing while not having scientific answers?

There's is nothing in science to discount the possibility that the universe came from nothing. Your comprehension of quantum mechanics, particle physics and cosmology are not required,thelaws of thermodynamics are.

Observation/knowledge of conditions show life from inert chemicals is feasible.

 

[ChristineM]

When one verse says that earth and heaven were one single entity before being separated,
what you call it? doesn't it agree with our findings?

Where does your god book say that?

As it happens, earth was born about 9 billion years after space (i suppose your heaven because there is no other evidenced volume that heaven can be)

 

[ChristineM]

I have not mentioned God, so why do you? This is a discussion on science, not of religion. I base my rejection of evolution on science, especially on the proven science of genetics, not on the Bible.

Try to stick to the subject.

Whether you mention god or not is irrelevant, you post using ideas only concepted by god believers.

No you do not base your rejection on science, you deliberately ignore genetics. If you use scientific argument then there would be no argument because evolution is proven by several unrelated scientific disciplines. None reject evolution. That's real science by the way, not creation science.

 

[FearGod]

Across cultures He's always anthropomorphized; always thought of as a he or she. We never talk about God as an 'it'. (no objections from Hindus, please. Brahman is not a "God.")

God isn't a human, what pronouns used won't change what God is.

A very scientific attitude, dismissing a supernatural explanation even if a natural explanation isn't immediately apparent. It makes me wonder why you still cling to this supernatural God concept

Because God does what we can't, such as the creation in which God made it simple by asking
for making a fly and it'll be a proof that he isn't the creator because we can, but we can't.

And which message would this be: The Rig Veda? I-Ching sticks? A shaman's revelation under the influence of ayahuasca? The Guru Granth Sahib? Cracks in a shoulder blade? The entrails of a goat? The Quran? '' -- all are media of revelation. How should we assess them?
Again, which message?

The one which make sense for the searcher.

If everything must have a cause, who/what caused God?

The cause of all causes and the origin of it, how and why, we don't know but
that how it should be "a starter for all things to start with"

 

[FearGod]

There's is nothing in science to discount the possibility that the universe came from nothing. Your comprehension of quantum mechanics, particle physics and cosmology are not required,thelaws of thermodynamics are.

Observation/knowledge of conditions show life from inert chemicals is feasible.

How the laws of thermodynamics prove that God isn't required?

 

[FearGod]

Where does your god book say that?

As it happens, earth was born about 9 billion years after space (i suppose your heaven because there is no other evidenced volume that heaven can be)

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

 

[ChristineM]

How the laws of thermodynamics prove that God isn't required?

The fact that they exist.

 

[ChristineM]

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

The question was where, not what

 

[FearGod]

The question was where, not what

I didn't get what you mean by where, if the verse or the book or if you mean another thing?
please clarify

 

[FearGod]

The fact that they exist.

How's that?please explain as of how

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't get what you mean by where, if the verse or the book or if you mean another thing?
please clarify

Read your link now, superseded by facts

 

[ChristineM]

How's that?please explain as of how

They are natural laws of this universe, they did not coalesce until after the bb. There is nowhere in those laws that requires god magic, just natural process's

 

[FearGod]

They are natural laws of this universe, they did not coalesce until after the bb. There is nowhere in those laws that requires god magic, just natural process's

Can these laws explain how the universe came to existence and how life originated?

 

[ChristineM]

Can these laws explain how the universe came to existence and how life originated?

Can you? Honestly without invoking "doh, i don't know so god dunit"

 

[ChristineM]

Can these laws explain how the universe came to existence and how life originated?

Considering that the laws of thermodynamics coalesced after the bb its actually kind of a nonsensical question.

 

[Valjean]

Can these laws explain how the universe came to existence and how life originated?

Presumably. They're all we have. How else could we expect to understand what happened?
Understanding these laws got us to the moon, gave us smart phones and wiped out smallpox.

There are no known alternative research approaches. You can say goddidit, but that's not an explanation, just an assignation of agency.

 

[Kirran]

We never talk about God as an 'it'. (no objections from Hindus, please. Brahman is not a "God.")

Brahman is not "a" God. Brahman is God, period.