There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Wildswanderer]

There is no evidence whatsoever for gods, the supernatural or magic of any kind.

I guess if you don't count the testimonies of billions of people.... the supernatural by definition would seem to be untestable by science.

 

[Polymath257]

If that was a case it could be tested and observed.

And it is: the chemistry of proteins, of RNA and DNA, of sugars, of catalysis of basic metabolic reactions, etc. These are ALL testable and observable ideas that lend support to the concept of abiogenesis.

 

[Polymath257]

I guess if you don't count the testimonies of billions of people.... the supernatural by definition would seem to be untestable by science.

The testimonies of billions of people show that there are common emotional reactions. But we know that: stimulation of the temporal lobe can induce religious feelings. That is why certain forms of epilepsy are correlated with religious fervor.

The question isn't whether those experiences exist. The question is how to interpret them. And in that, those billions of people have a multitude of different beliefs and reactions. And that suggests that what is going on is a figment of the mind playing tricks rather than something real and consistent.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And it is: the chemistry of proteins, of RNA and DNA, of sugars, of catalysis of basic metabolic reactions, etc. These are ALL testable and observable ideas that lend support to the concept of abiogenesis.

That like saying because I can boil water I'm the world's greatest chef and can create any meal. Of if I can add one and one I'm the world's greatest mathematician ever...

 

[ppp]

It's not complicated. It's just impossible from the information given.

It's not complicated. At least, the basics are not. And yet I have yet to see you represent their argument in a way that they would agree that it is their argument. I don't understand why creationists, such as yourself, feel the need to fabricate a false opposing position if the actual opposing position is so very flawed.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And it certainly has much more support than anything proposing a supernatural intervention that produces life from a non-chemical, non-biological means.

What does that really mean? An Eternal God speaks His Word and Creates? It makes perfect sense and John 1 explains that in the beginning was the Word the Word was with God and the Word was God, He became flesh and dwelt among us. The disciples said who is this that the wind and waves obey Him? Explain your view and the other option and start with the very beginning.

 

[Polymath257]

No need for something else or sex.
God fills the entire universe. Certainly he can produce life from his own energy anywhere.

By what mechanism?

And since the only way we know of for life to come from life is via cells dividing, your own argument then says that any living thing giving rise to life on Earth has to be made of cells that divided to give what we see.

You *claim* that God fills the universe, but provide no evidence for that (other than anecdotal beliefs). You claim that God is alive, in spite of not showing any of the prerequisites of being alive (growth, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, etc).

And now you claim that God has energy. Interesting. how does God's energy enter into the law of conservation of energy? Is it equivalent to mass and potential energy? What are some mechanisms of conversion?

 

[Polymath257]

My definition of life? You mean the common one?
life
līf
noun

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

That's too small for an all powerful entity. An all powerful being is beyond the necessity to be subject to the environment because he is not dependent on the environment for survival. But he is certainly alive as in having an intellect and the ability to reproduce. You need to look outside your limited science box to find any complete answers.

So you agree that an all-powerful being does not fit the definition of being alive?

Maybe what *you* need to do is define your concepts so we know what we are talking about. Specifically, what do you mean when you say that something is alive? Common expression, especially among scientists, requires growth, metabolism, homeostasis, a system far from equilibrium, etc. NONE of those have any bearing, as you pointed out, to a deity.

So, in what sense is a deity alive?

You suggest that it has to do with an intellect, but the vast majority of living things don't have complex intellects. So that isn't a determinative criterion. In fact, it seems likely that artificial intelligence is possible in non-living things like computers. So intelligence is completely beside the point of the origin of life.

We are interested in how cellular life originated. That would include a bilipid membrane enclosing chemical reactions that demonstrate homeostasis, metabolism, reproduction, and growth.

Abiogenesis at the very least considers the chemistry of life and asks how it would get started. It becomes very technical quickly because the relevant organic chemistry quickly gets technical.

All that you offer is handwaving that some supernatural thing that doesn't satisfy the properties of being alive nonetheless is crucial (because life only comes from life) for the origin of life by mechanisms that are not detailed, nor even considered. Then you claim that abiogenesis is magical and mysterious.

 

[Polymath257]

What does that really mean? An Eternal God speaks His Word and Creates? It makes perfect sense and John 1 explains that in the beginning was the Word the Word was with God and the Word was God, He became flesh and dwelt among us. The disciples said who is this that the wind and waves obey Him? Explain your view and the other option and start with the very beginning.

It only makes perfect sense for those that believe in magic words and neo-Platonism.

Exactly how does a word create anything? that characterizes magical thinking and belief systems.

And yes, I reject that.

I believe that physical things have properties and the natural laws describe the behaviors that come from those properties. Matter interacts and is dynamcally active, leading to increasing complexity in some situations. Among those situations are the chemical mixtures that were seen on thee early Earth and the result was the complexities of life.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It only makes perfect sense for those that believe in magic words and neo-Platonism.

Exactly how does a word create anything? that characterizes magical thinking and belief systems.

Well, you did say the great way I was delivered from my addictions and for the last 35 years has been a complete change was due to a trick of psychology. So if your view was I could think really hard and some trick this miraculous change could happen then an Eternal God who is all powerful could speak His Word and things happen just like He said, words have power even our words, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Sheldon]

That is evidence-based faith!!!!


The "assurance" of saving faith is, therefore, not blind belief. It is based on the proof found in history. It is the belief that God cannot change and can be trusted to on doing what He had done in the past.

So not evidence at all then, just hearsay anecdotal claims from the bible again, misrepresented as historical fact.

 

[Sheldon]

A study of the various characters mentioned in this chapter shows that they all had good reasons to trust in God. Their faith was based on past experiences.

A study of the Harry Potter books shows they had good reasons to believe in wizardry, now do take your time here, and think carefully, is that evidence for wizard?

 

[Sheldon]

Five Solas said: ↑
I believe in and trust God because of the evidence.

Great, demonstrate it, and then we can take a look.

Just read Hebrews 11 - that explains it all. Simples....

So you can't demonstrate any objective evidence at all then, and can only point at anecdotal hearsay claims in the bible, and despite your claims to knowledge, you want others to research this for you.

It's your claim to have evidence, if you think that passage contains some then quote it, and explain specifically what evidence you think it contains.

If you can of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Nonsense. Read Hebrews 11.

Read it, no evidence at all, just a string of claims?

 

[Sheldon]

Nope. Read Hebrews 11 with attention to see how saving faith works.

A study of the various characters mentioned in this chapter shows that they all had good reasons to trust in God. Their faith was based on what God had done in the past. That makes it evidence-based faith. All faith works like that

Then try again...

I can read a dictionary thanks, and you are the one deviating from the commonly understood meaning of the word here. So you can try again...I am not obliged to accept your faith based blind belief that a biblical passage means what you say it means, and the claims in the bible are not objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

How did we get the canon of Scripture? Not from a movie, seems that’s where your ideas come from.

It seems straw men are now all you have.

Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John

You seem to be plucking your facts from somewhere, I dread to think where.

 

[Sheldon]

I’ve heard a lot of people say it took the proverbial 2x4 across the head before they could understand this.

Not much to understand really, he is offering biblical claims in the pretence they represent evidence of something. This would evidence the legends of Hercules, or even Harry Potter.

 

[Sheldon]

A lot of debate on the issue and a person’s eternal destiny is at stake so everyone has to be convinced in their own mind.

I don't believe you, especially since unevidenced anecdote and hyperbole, is all you have managed to produce to support your blind faith in weeks of debate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have looked at the so called evidence. It's nothing of the sort.

You are unaware of the evidence. You've made that abundantly clear. That's fine, but it undermines your contention that that evidence doesn't exist with those who have seen it.

My definition of life? You mean the common one?
life
līf
noun

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

That's too small for an all powerful entity. An all powerful being is beyond the necessity to be subject to the environment because he is not dependent on the environment for survival. But he is certainly alive as in having an intellect and the ability to reproduce. You need to look outside your limited science box to find any complete answers.

You considered God life in your argument that all life comes from other life. Then you offer a definition similar to the one I gave you that would exclude that god.

Furthermore, no definition of life is relevant to the discussion of whether creationism implies the existence of life not having come from previous life, because it doesn't matter whether that deity is considered alive to come to that conclusion. This is just you trying to evade admitting that you made a mistake by avoiding discussing it.

Intellect is not part of any biological definition of life.

I'm not interested in thinking outside of any box that ignores pure reason. Like many others, I've labored assiduously to learn how to avoid doing that, how to identify and avoid making the logical fallacies littering the outside of the box. Nobody transcends reason. One can only fail to use it properly.

Or you just never visited another church where the Holy Spirit was present.

Really? I thought that it was supposed to be everywhere.

God fills the entire universe.

You mean except the Holy Spirit, which apparently can't be found in certain churches.

Dawkins said maybe aliens brought life here. ..at least he was getting close to the truth, although unintentionally.

That's irrelevant to the comment, "If [life] started to exist, it must have come from a state of non-life." Or were you thinking that meant life came from a state like Georgia or Vermont? If so, that's not what was meant. The first life in the universe arose from a state of nonlife somewhere in the universe, whether on earth or elsewhere.

I guess if you don't count the testimonies of billions of people ... the supernatural by definition would seem to be untestable by science.

The testimonies of billions of people suggesting that they have detected what you say is undetectable to science is not just unconvincing, it's incoherent. It contradicts itself. There is nothing you or any other human being can detect that undetectable to man. Obviously.

I've suggested to you that your RF life would be less contentious if you recognized and admitted that you believe what you believe by faith, not evidence or reason, and posted that way. When you invoke faith as your basis for belief, nobody can challenge you, because you are merely expressing what you choose to believe. All somebody like me would say is, "Great. I don't think that way and thus have no reason to believe what you do."

But when you invoke the latter, now you are claiming that there is an empirical path to discerning a deity available to anybody else who can apprehend evidence and use reason to arrive at a sound god belief, which deserves rebuttal, because it is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[Sheldon]

For what you call a forgery sure is accurate of your comments and our current system of affairs. This has been foretold in Matthew 24, which also confirms Daniels Vision and dreams which are explained in the book, even the last kingdom before Jesus returns, unless the whole world is in on the conspiracy. And your comments too:

“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
‭‭II Thessalonians‬ ‭2:3-12‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭4:3-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

So an anonymous author is alleged to have made a claim that something happened, that you are claiming was predicted by another previous unknown author.