If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[skepticalbip]

Isn't everyone?

...unlike a rock which cant decide to turn itself into a living creature. #First_Cause #Aristotle

"A rock deciding to turn itself into a living creature" is neither Evolution by Natural Selection nor Abiogenesis.

I agree.
A rock deciding to do something is NOT natural selection or abiogenesis. And since rocks can't/dont do this we can exclude this idea from our list of available menu options.

I say God dunnit.
What do you say?
...cue quantum spookiness argument in 3...2...1

Quantum??? WTF?

Try chemistry. And you don't start with rocks but elements that form molecules quite naturally. The molecules then combine to make more complex molecules... That is how chemistry works and would be obvious to you if you had taken chemistry. Under normal, natural conditions, large and complex molecules can and do form. In organic chemistry, this results in such molecules as amino acids, proteins, etc.

 

[abaddon]

Why pretend it's an argument over science? Creationists assert life has to be intended or it cannot happen. There's no way of knowing that's true and it's very clear that the only reason it's argued is because they want to feel intended by a Being.

Biochemistry's a good place to start regarding abiogenesis. Still, at this point in time, we don't know the details about how life first started. And I don't think there's a more reasonable stance than to just acknowledge it.

A creationist told me that "I don't know" is the stance of the incurious. Worse than wrong, as usual with creationists, because it actually increases one's curiosity to know that you don't know. Incurious people grasp at prefab answers because they need to feel a sense of certainty.

I wonder what puzzle about nature that theism ever solved? Can anyone name a scientific question that got solved by jeering at naturalism and finding a supernatural answer?

EoG would be an interesting hypothesis if there was any track record. Some creationists (Learner is on about this a lot) suggest that a theistic science would be more complete but don't say how so. They talk as if the study of God would reveal wonders, but when asked about God they never have new news to tell - it's just right back to "biblical sources". So "God dunit" explains nothing at all. A curious mind would want to know more, even at the cost of his sense of certainty (that he's answered "the big existential questions" in a way that feels ego-comforting).

 

[Jarhyn]

I agree.
A rock deciding to do something is NOT natural selection or abiogenesis. And since rocks can't/dont do this we can exclude this idea from our list of available menu options.

I say God dunnit.
What do you say?
...cue quantum spookiness argument in 3...2...1

Quantum??? WTF?

Try chemistry. And you don't start with rocks but elements that form molecules quite naturally. The molecules then combine to make more complex molecules... That is how chemistry works and would be obvious to you if you had taken chemistry. Under normal, natural conditions, large and complex molecules can and do form. In organic chemistry, this results in such molecules as amino acids, proteins, etc.

This guy is calling the complex carbon chemistry at a volcanic vent "rocks"...

Dudes, if you can't understand that sometimes rocks roll downhill, and that sometimes chemicals follow paths that satisfy force gradients, and sometimes these gradients are very interesting in organic chemistry, that is, any chemistry involving carbon.

 

[Aesthete]

Something I find sadly amusing is this.

The number of people who insist that the evidence for speciation through natural selection doesn't reach their high standards for evidence. But the evidence for Jesus's Death and Resurrection does.

What's with that?
Tom

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

 

[Keith&Co.]

obody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

So, you think the gospels were written by the people someone else named them after?
Really?

Why?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Is that why the four gospels differ as to the day and hour of his execution, as to whether many dead people came out of their graves and walked about ("seen by many"), as to who showed up at the empty tomb, as to whether the rock was in place or was moved by an angel, as they watched, whether some sort of earthquake occurred (in Matthew), as to whom they encountered (an angel, a young man, two men, no one)...Read the beginning of Matthew 28 and John 20 and see if that's the same event. Going back to the dead coming out of the graves, in Matthew 27, do you believe that "many saw them" -- their own dead come to life -- but only one gospel writer got the story?

 

[Wiploc]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

Okay.

But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection.

Wait, didn't you just say that nobody ever observed such a thing?

Or maybe your claim is that Jesus wasn't a person?

Or that he hadn't really died?

Or that he wasn't really alive after the resurrection?

These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

Now you're saying ... what, that all religions are true?

I know a witness who says she experienced god -- did something like a Vulcan mind-meld -- and discovered that he is just one person, not a trinity. If eyewitness testimony is reliable, we have to accept that, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

Oh, hey, are you under the impression that in science, "repeatable observations" means 'eye-witnessed'?

'Cause if thsst is what you think, you're wrong. And if it isn't what you think, then you're wrong in a different way.

But either way, you're still denying evolutionary theory by throwing in things that are not part of evolutionary theory. So you're just PRATTing away with nonsense.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder what puzzle about nature that theism ever solved?

There was that time a ship was sinking, and they drew lots to see who was to blame, and the lots said, "Jonah's fault" and they were right.

 

[skepticalbip]

Something I find sadly amusing is this.

The number of people who insist that the evidence for speciation through natural selection doesn't reach their high standards for evidence. But the evidence for Jesus's Death and Resurrection does.

What's with that?
Tom

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

True, but then no one ever claimed that anyone ever did observe such a thing (if someone did watch such a thing happening then it would disprove the theory of evolution). Also nobody observed a god 'poof' dust into people either though you seem to believe there is a god and that he/she/it did do the poofing magic.

But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection.

Nope. There is a claim that some people found an empty tomb. Then later there is a claim that some people saw Jesus, though some of them didn't recognize him.

 

[Lion IRC]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people.

Oh, hey, are you under the impression that in science, "repeatable observations" means 'eye-witnessed'?

Eyes are the sensory organ I typically use to 'observe' stuff.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

I really wish you'd answer my original question but I'm not holding my breath.

To your claims here, life is nothing but complex chemistry. Complex chemistry can arise from simple chemistry, which arises from simple physics, which arises from simpler physics, all the time. If you would learn some science you might change your mind about some of your claims. It's interesting that you say something is only real if someone saw it.

Gotta go, Superman is on my back porch, dropped in to chat.

 

[abaddon]

It's interesting that you say something is only real if someone saw it.

Maybe what he meant is it's only known to be real if someone saw it with eyeballs. ;-)

Like God creating the universe for example.

 

[Aesthete]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

I really wish you'd answer my original question but I'm not holding my breath.

Which is what?

To your claims here, life is nothing but complex chemistry. Complex chemistry can arise from simple chemistry, which arises from simple physics, which arises from simpler physics, all the time. If you would learn some science you might change your mind about some of your claims. It's interesting that you say something is only real if someone saw it.

Gotta go, Superman is on my back porch, dropped in to chat.

This is completely ridiculous. Life is complex chemistry, you say. That statement is meaningless. My computer is made from the simple elements of the earth. Is it something complex arising from something simple? Yes, but not without a maker. There's no law of physics that favors the development of life over its non-development! Quite the contrary - if a self-replicating system could have gotten started all on its own, all the laws of the universe are against its continuation and in favor of its degradation and disappearance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Life is complex chemistry, you say. That statement is meaningless.

Well, yes, it is. But you were the one claiming that life is "too complex" to be unplanned, without even suggesting a way to measure complexity.
So, apparently yoh like arguing by meaningless statements.


"if a self-replicating system could have gotten started all on its own, all the laws of the universe are against its continuation "

ALL the laws? Really? You can show that? I doubt you can list all the laws of the universe, much less show how life as we know it is in violation of all the laws of the universe.
THAT would be an impressive demonstration, one of those things that actually require the existence of God to explain.

But, no, no such demonstration will be offered to support this absolute claim.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nobody every observed life coming from non-life and turning into people. But there were many eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrection. These same witnesses likewise did confirm the word of God with supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony is reliable, especially when there are many eyewitnesses, and especially when those same eyewitnesses were given power to perform miracles, and when those same eyewitness were so persuaded of what they had seen that they were not concerned about risking their lives for the gospel.

I really wish you'd answer my original question but I'm not holding my breath.

Which is what?

Here’s the post:

I wonder where he draws the line between what he calls "life" and what he calls "non-life." Is the CO2 I exhale alive when it's in me but not alive once it reenters the atmosphere? Does it become "alive" again when an oak tree takes it up? And what about an electron? Is it alive when it's part of my makeup but not alive when it's running along a power line in front of my house? What changes?

That's why I use the word abracadabra. Much easier to wave the magic wand and believe in spooky magic than to actually think about questions like this.

Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

 

[Aesthete]

Which is what?

Here’s the post:

I wonder where he draws the line between what he calls "life" and what he calls "non-life." Is the CO2 I exhale alive when it's in me but not alive once it reenters the atmosphere? Does it become "alive" again when an oak tree takes it up? And what about an electron? Is it alive when it's part of my makeup but not alive when it's running along a power line in front of my house? What changes?

That's why I use the word abracadabra. Much easier to wave the magic wand and believe in spooky magic than to actually think about questions like this.

Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence. Are viruses alive? Whether they are or not has no real impact on the empirical fact that life exists and doesn't come from non-life (that is, not without the power of God).

 

[Keith&Co.]

... the empirical fact that life exists and doesn't come from non-life (that is, not without the power of God).

wonder what Aesthete thinks 'empirical' actually means?

 

[TomC]

Here’s the post:


Later I added:

I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?

Please tell us the difference between life and what you call non life in terms of its parts. Is CO2 alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, etc? And if life cannot come from what you call non life, how does a magic creature do it? Is it just that it’s magic and that magic creatures can do anything they want?

And if no one saw this magic creature make the universe, how do you know it did? You claimed things don't happen because no one sees them happen. Curious your answers but again, not holding my breath.

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence.

I can't speak for any other members...

But this post sure sounds, to me, like "I can't answer your questions without overturning my cart of assertions so I'm not interested."
Assertions like "life cannot come from non-life, except for God".

Evidence suggests differently, even if you prefer not to examine the evidence.
Tom

 

[skepticalbip]

Your question did not interest me because it seems like you are trying to define life out of existence.

I can't speak for any other members...

But this post sure sounds, to me, like "I can't answer your questions without overturning my cart of assertions so I'm not interested."
Assertions like "life cannot come from non-life, except for God".

Evidence suggests differently, even if you prefer not to examine the evidence.
Tom

It does tend to negate all his claims that life can not come from non-life if he is unable (or unwilling) to define what he is claiming is the difference between life and non-life.