There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[cottage]

That is how you read it and not as I intended for it to read. I am not that dense to believe that all non-believers are bigots and I am astounded that you consider that I implied such a Macavellion stance.

Okay then I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that point.

No.

Then you would be wrong. Those that employ such techniques are certainly not impartial and may very well be ‘mindless bigots’.

If you had then you would have read my many posts stating clearly that there is no single piece of evidence that supports the existence of God but that there are many circumstantial evidences that when combined make the existence of God more likely then not.

It's perhaps the biggest, most controversial mystery in the cosmos. Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God who nurtures and sustains all life?

The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them; a belief further backed up by evidence that everything in our universe may emanate from one extraordinarily elegant and beautiful design known as the E8 Lie Group*.

While skeptics hold that these findings are neither conclusive nor evidence of a divine creator, some cutting edge physicists are already positing who this God is: an alien gamester who's created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement. It's an answer as compelling as it is disconcerting.

Through The Wormhole: Is There A Creator? - Watch Free Documentary Online


* Basic description

The Lie group E8 has dimension 248. Its rank, which is the dimension of its maximal torus, is 8. Therefore the vectors of the root system are in eight-dimensional Euclidean space: they are described explicitly later in this article. The Weyl group of E8, which is the group of symmetries of the maximal torus which are induced by conjugations in the whole group, has order 214 3 5 5 2 7 = 696729600.

The compact group E8 is unique among simple compact Lie groups in that its non-trivial representation of smallest dimension is the adjoint representation (of dimension 248) acting on the Lie algebra E8 itself; it is also the unique one which has the following four properties: trivial center, compact, simply connected, and simply laced (all roots have the same length).

There is a Lie algebra En for every integer n ≥ 3, which is infinite dimensional if n is greater than 8.

With respect this is all kerfuffle. An ‘alien gamester’ that created the world is logically possible, implies no contradiction and may even be true. But we’re talking about God, are we not? You describe yourself as a Christian and presumably we are discussing the God of classical theism, a Supreme Being, one who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. To add further to this you say yourself: ‘Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God who nurtures and sustains all life?’ So let’s not pretend that this is all just a disinterested enquiry into the origin of the cosmos. You are arguing to a particular end, a conclusion that you already hold to in advance from faith.

So we’re talking about a personal, intelligent being that brought the universe into existence for a reason (since it would be contradictory for such a being to bring the world into existence for no purpose, or for it to have happened by accident). I have a series of arguments that demonstrate the logical impossibility of God, at least as it applies to classical theism, including objections to the Kalam and other cosmological arguments, the ontological arguments, and the Problem of Evil. I’m happy to discuss these with you here or direct you to other threads on the site where I’m making those arguments.

 

[Serenity7855]

You don't know that it hasn't happened since. Where is your evidence?

My evidence is science. If it would have happened again, or if scientist were to have replicated it, then we would not be here discussing it, or, in Bunyip case, being aggressively defensive of it and lying about it by saying it has been done, it has not, but let's see his evidence for life coming from non-life, naturally, and within the same environment that existed when it was claimed to have originally happened. I look forward to it in anticipation.

Once life exists then life will perpetuate itself throughout our word. Life will naturally spring from life, biogenesis. It would be almost impossible for it to occur again as non-life has been replaced with life so we have to manufacture it in order to undertake experimentations on it. Our world is teaming with life so, please, show me non-life. I genuinely cannot think of any.

 

[Serenity7855]

Okay then I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that point.

Then you would be wrong. Those that employ such techniques are certainly not impartial and may very well be ‘mindless bigots’.

Oh, I am sure they are, however, that is not what you asked me. You said "Are you saying atheists that use brainwashing techniques are impartial and without mindless bigotry?" and I said "no" because I wasn't saying that.

With respect this is all kerfuffle. An ‘alien gamester’ that created the world is logically possible, implies no contradiction and may even be true. But we’re talking about God, are we not? You describe yourself as a Christian and presumably we are discussing the God of classical theism, a Supreme Being, one who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. To add further to this you say yourself: ‘Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God who nurtures and sustains all life?’ So let’s not pretend that this is all just a disinterested enquiry into the origin of the cosmos. You are arguing to a particular end, a conclusion that you already hold to in advance from faith.

What do you believe the God of classic theism is?

No, I did not say "‘Did our Universe just come into being by random chance,.", that was part of the quote I gave in response to your request.

Yes, I am arguing towards a particular end that I believe via my faith, however, I am not being bias, which is why I use words like "superior entity" or "a God" so as to be impartial, but mainly to be honest. I know God exists, however, I do not know the details of his existence. That is why I ask you what you mean by a God of classical theism, . .

So we’re talking about a personal, intelligent being that brought the universe into existence for a reason (since it would be contradictory for such a being to bring the world into existence for no purpose, or for it to have happened by accident).

Yes

I have a series of arguments that demonstrate the logical impossibility of God, at least as it applies to classical theism, including objections to the Kalam and other cosmological arguments, the ontological arguments, and the Problem of Evil. I’m happy to discuss these with you here or direct you to other threads on the site where I’m making those arguments.

I always take a deep breath whenever anybody claims to have objections to Kalams cosmological argument. It is just Newton's Law on motion. Cause and effect, so if you disagree with Kalam then you disagree with Sir Isaac Newton.

I do not have sufficient time to conduct multiple involvement in several different threads, however, if you have a point to make, or an opinion to express, that in anyway critiques the existence of divinity, then I will respond with refutations.

 

[Serenity7855]

Whoever said that it was simple? If abiogenesis is possible, how do you know that we must have figured it out by now?

I did not say it was simple, it was Serp777 that said that. I do not think it is simple and merely said that if it is as simple as he claims it to be, then why haven't they resolved it.

Something is not automatically supernatural because we currently lack a natural explanation for it. You even used the word "currently" yourself.

Yes it is. If it cannot be explained using naturalistic laws then it is outside of natural explanation, it is "supernatural" or metaphysical.

 

[Parsimony]

I did not say it was simple, it was Serp777 that said that. I do not think it is simple and merely said that if it is as simple as he claims it to be, then why haven't they resolved it.

Understood.

Yes it is. If it cannot be explained using naturalistic laws then it is outside of natural explanation, it is "supernatural" or metaphysical.

You said 'currently'. Lacking a current natural explanation does not automatically equate to a supernatural explanation. People thousands of years ago had no natural explanation for lightning but that would not have justified them saying that lightning is definitely supernatural.

 

[Serenity7855]

First, just because it's simple doesn't mean it's easy to discover. Famous equations, like those in magnetism, electricity, and relativity are very simple, but were very difficult to initially determine. E = mc^2 and the lorentz transform is a good one, which, in conjunction with other work, took decades of time investments from a variety of physicists including albert einstein. Patterns are often hard to determine.

You said "-just because that person cannot understand how life and DNA came about through natural, simple processes, doesn't mean it's not true." So, you are saying that abiogenesis is a simple process, however, you then said "Famous equations, like those in magnetism, electricity, and relativity are very simple, but were very difficult to initially determine. E = mc^2". Well clearly the process is very difficult to determine but the equation is simple, opposed to the abiogenesis process being simple and the equation being non-existent. There is simply no comparison between the two as moth process differ in severity.

addition, scientists have made great progress on uncovering the process by which life could have initially developed. Hydrothermal vents offer a location that allows interesting combinations of organic material, which eventually, in the right conditions, could lead to life. Nothing about the research being done suggests that a supernatural spark from an eye in sky was required. It is a fact that the spontaneous development of life requires nothing more than random chance. The documentation--

The probability of such an event occurring is so astronomical that it is beyond consideration.

"While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Palasek showed that self-assembly of RNA molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents.[79] Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[80] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[81][82]"

You are talking about life producing life, not non-life creating life. Everything on our planet is now alive.

It is not a supernatural event, unless you have some evidence for that.

Yes, it was a supernatural event because there is no naturalistic explanation. The definition below should serve as sufficient evidence.

Definition of Supernatural

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Even the rapid expansion into a soup of plasma is a supernatural event.

All of the current evidence points to a genesis that was chemical in nature.

no, it does not, unless you have evidence to substantiate your claim.

And you certainly haven't proved which God created life.

There is only one God, just in several guises.

 

[Alt Thinker]

If I remember my Boolean algebra right, you can even construct a nor gate from two or three band gates.

You can theoretically construct an entire computer using only NAND gates but it would be gigantic.

 

[outhouse]

There is only one God, just in several guises.

Factually Unsubstantiated :slap:


You base this definition based on ancient mens mythology you know nothing about.

 

[Serenity7855]

Understood.


You said 'currently'. Lacking a current natural explanation does not automatically equate to a supernatural explanation. People thousands of years ago had no natural explanation for lightning but that would not have justified them saying that lightning is definitely supernatural.

Yes, it did. There was no naturalistic explanation for Lightning, therefore, it was considered to be a supernatural event, even to the point of it being the gods getting angry. It is like the miracles performed by Jesus. A miracle is a supernatural event. No one could explain how he did it, however, in todays world, much of what he did can be explained using medical science, so, it is no longer a supernatural event, it is a natural event that takes place everywhere around the world every day. Abiogenesis will cease to be a supernatural event as soon as we replicate it. I do not believe that will ever happen. It is "God Science" and should be a testimony builder to all Christians everywhere.

 

[Serenity7855]

You can theoretically construct an entire computer using only NAND gates but it would be gigantic.

Ah, you are still around? Any progress on part 4 of the contradiction in the Gospels?

 

[outhouse]

It is "God Science"

.

Unsubstantiated :slap:


This is fantasy on your part to over attribute things you know nothing about.

 

[outhouse]

In this whole thread you have provided little that exist outside imagination.


You have provided faith, and that is all.

 

[outhouse]

Until you refute this, you have little to say with credibility.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult

 

[Sapiens]

The probability of such an event occurring is so astronomical that it is beyond consideration.

Most scientists in the field would disagree with you, please explain you probability calculation.

You are talking about life producing life, not non-life creating life. Everything on our planet is now alive.

Really? Read again: "There are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Palasek showed that self-assembly of RNA molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents."

Yes, it was a supernatural event because there is no naturalistic explanation. The definition below should serve as sufficient evidence.

Wow, we'd be lost without an appeal to ignorance.

 

[Serenity7855]

Until you refute this, you have little to say with credibility.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult

52% of female born during the times of Jesus were call Mary. Most people had one of just a few names. When talking about Mary Magdalena one had to be specific to make sure that people knew who you were talking about. The same dilemma could have easily happened with the diety of the day, it does not make the story of the Gospels copycat stories. Secondly, how do you intend proving that the reality of Jesus Christ was a take off of some mythical Gods.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

52% of female born during the times of Jesus were call Mary.

Man, that must have been really confusing...

 

[outhouse]

52% of female born during the times of Jesus were call Mary.

Provide sources.

Bit even then it does not address a word I posted

Most people had one of just a few names. When talking about Mary Magdalena one had to be specific to make sure that people knew who you were talking about. The same dilemma could have easily happened with the diety of the day, it does not make the story of the Gospels copycat stories.

it does not address a word I posted

Secondly, how do you intend proving that the reality of Jesus Christ was a take off of some mythical Gods

men create and define deities.

men created the mythology and defined jesus

 

[Serenity7855]

Most scientists in the field would disagree with you, please explain you probability calculation.

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.

The Improbability of Abiogenesis

New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

Really? Read again: "There are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Palasek showed that self-assembly of RNA molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hypothermal vents."
Wow, we'd be lost without an appeal to ignorance.

Well, I am not answering this without researching it, to that end, it is still very much in the speculative phase but there is still a problem with probability and the need for precise conditions and a solid knowledge as to the environment of the earth and what was here at the time that life sprang into existence. I do not believe that science is in a position yet to defend the hypothesis.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.

The Improbability of Abiogenesis

New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life -- ScienceDaily

Much of what you posted here is correct. One of the reasons why the scientists were unfruitful in much of their research regarding abiogensis was because the theory they were working with was either incomplete or wrong. Sometimes this happens in science. It does 180s or less or even more when new evidence or studies are provided.

The newer theory for abiogiesnis is far stronger and actually supported by tested evidence. Its much of the same stuff but more specific on how it was created. Abiogensis in some primordial soup was incorrect as it didn't account for how it was created. But now we have abiogensis with a specific method of creation. In fact (i'll try to find a link) there are some scientists that work with abiogensis that reject the common ancestor to all life portion of evolution. That there may have been more than one "genesis" so to speak. Also the line between "life" and "nonelife" is not something easily drawn and would not have been apparent evolutionary.

For example there was no "not a human" one generation and then "human" the next. There is no clear line between species and its only useful when used between two fossils along the same genetic line that are different enough to be considered separate species.

 

[Sapiens]

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.

The Improbability of Abiogenesis

You are improperly and incorrectly using data from the Minimal Genome Project as your base ... that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the origin of life.

Wiki: "The concept of minimal genome assumes that genomes can be reduced to a bare minimum, given that they contain many non-essential genes of limited or situational importance to the organism. Therefore, if a collection of all the essential genes were put together, a minimum genome could be created artificially in a stable environment. By adding more genes, the creation of an organism of desired properties is possible. The concept of minimal genome arose from the observations that many genes do not appear to be necessary for survival.[1][2] In order to create a new organism a scientist must determine the minimal set of genes required for metabolism and replication. This can be achieved by experimental and computational analysis of the biochemical pathways needed to carry out basic metabolism and reproduction.[3] "

That's radically different from establishing what was required at the first step toward life, or the second step, or even the hundredth step. Conditions were radically different. You are assuming that the minimum requirement for today's "life as we know it" is the same, an assumption that I can assure you is completely mistaken.

New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life -- ScienceDaily

Well, I am not answering this without researching it, to that end, it is still very much in the speculative phase but there is still a problem with probability and the need for precise conditions and a solid knowledge as to the environment of the earth and what was here at the time that life sprang into existence. I do not believe that science is in a position yet to defend the hypothesis.

Clearly your answer is without research, unless you term cut and paste from creationist sites without thought as "research." Your "suggestion" has been debunked so repeatedly it even has a number: CB010 ( CB010: Probability of Abiogenesis )

As I've oft noted, we close with your classic appeal to ignorance.