One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1360
Credit: 546,884
RAC: 349
United States
Message 1320061 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 6:49:24 UTC

Since our beginnings we have answered a lot of questions about events that were originally attributed to God. Lightning and thunder, earthquakes, volcanos,the plague and many other events have been identified as natural events with no connection to God.

But the one thing we cannot do ourselves is create life. As far as I know, no scientist or doctor has been able to turn a bowl of the components of living matter into even a one celled living creature So maybe that is the one thing we still need a God to explain.

I'm surprised that none of the posts I have read in the numerous threads on the subject of God have mentioned this.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,343,797
RAC: 1,663
United States
Message 1320064 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 7:39:53 UTC - in response to Message 1320061.

I do believe abiogenesis HAS been discussed.

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 434
Credit: 1,079,620
RAC: 21
United States
Message 1320101 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 11:19:50 UTC

1 If god is truly omni everything then god is not knowable by man who is finite.

2 If god is finite then man can, if we live long enough surpass god.

For the first If god is all then defining him is the height of argent's because

it is beyond human understanding.

for the second It is in the nature of man to grow and learn with out limit.

As each limit accrue's man learns until he overcomes all obstetrical's.

to learn and overcome is the vary nature of man.

Any finite knowable god man will surpass.

So it is either useless to speculate on the unknowable or silly worship

something no better than man.

____________

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 535
Credit: 207,645
RAC: 117
Message 1320140 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 15:39:26 UTC

We don't know, in detail, the circumstances that led to the origin of life on this planet, so it's not really surprising that we haven't happened to have stumbled onto the correct combination of factors, by trial and error, or educated guessing yet.
It seems to me that the more perplexing problem for the pure materialists is explaining how it happens that there is something, rather than nothing. Problem: The universe exists!

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8472
Credit: 22,985,285
RAC: 14,061
United Kingdom
Message 1320194 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 21:58:29 UTC - in response to Message 1320188.

Indeed, the fact that we are here in effect proves that Someone did Something for us to be here.

Simply walk backwards in time...

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 535
Credit: 207,645
RAC: 117
Message 1320225 - Posted: 26 Dec 2012, 23:02:16 UTC

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8472
Credit: 22,985,285
RAC: 14,061
United Kingdom
Message 1320254 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 0:17:31 UTC - in response to Message 1320234.

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

I.D. Have you no intelligence, find your own quotes.

Michael Watson
Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 535
Credit: 207,645
RAC: 117
Message 1320256 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 0:23:53 UTC - in response to Message 1320234.

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.
Most of what I wrote is merely a brief recounting of what astrophysics has to say on the matter. The evidence supporting it is widely available from a multitude of sources. It is considered part of general scientific knowledge.
What remains is a question, not a claim of proof of any sort. If you object to any implied interpretation of scientific observations, evidence, or theory, on my part, please offer a specific critique, which we can then discuss.

Lynn
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 00
Posts: 3534
Credit: 470,642
RAC: 2,381
United States
Message 1320262 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 0:56:40 UTC - in response to Message 1320256.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. 93 million miles from the sun.
No other planet has the right ingredients, like we do. Not yet. Earth is perfect for life.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12037
Credit: 6,364,409
RAC: 8,647
United States
Message 1320310 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 4:16:45 UTC - in response to Message 1320262.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. 93 million miles from the sun.
No other planet has the right ingredients, like we do. Not yet. Earth is perfect for life.

Ah, the smell of circular logic ...

If you start with humans then it is amazing that the conditions on earth are just right for humans isn't it? Out of all the planets is is just shocking that humans are on the one just right for them.


____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8472
Credit: 22,985,285
RAC: 14,061
United Kingdom
Message 1320328 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 5:08:18 UTC - in response to Message 1320319.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. 93 million miles from the sun.
No other planet has the right ingredients, like we do. Not yet. Earth is perfect for life.


Excellent logic.

That's an expected quote from you, always going round in circles and in danger of disappearing up your own a___.

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1360
Credit: 546,884
RAC: 349
United States
Message 1320343 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 6:00:04 UTC

Whether or not the earth is or was perfect for the formation of life was not my point. Especially since our presence here makes that statement obvious. For me, the fact that we have neither created any form of life no found a suitable formula for how that first one celled ameba came to be is sufficient to allow for the possibility of God. If and when man or other intelligent being demonstrates that capability then the need for God is dimenished to nothing.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8472
Credit: 22,985,285
RAC: 14,061
United Kingdom
Message 1320350 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 6:39:21 UTC - in response to Message 1320332.

A measure of a scientist is the quality of their reviewed publications in professional publications, and the number of times they are refered to by other scientists in the same field.

Please direct me to any such publications for William Dembski.

Fred Hoyle work on nucleosynthesis has been acknowledged by William Alfred Fowler, the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 for his theoretical and experimental studies of the nuclear reactions of importance in the formation of the chemical elements in the universe, which was shared with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

But Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory in preference to the steady state theory. We do know that the universe is not in a steady state these days so any reference to his work on the subject has to be flawed.

He also proposed some pretty wacky theories on other subjects, which maybe the reason he was not included in the 1983 Nobel prize and why he was generally ignored by most scientists later in life.

So questions - none. Rejection of your post - Total.

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,628,349
RAC: 1,291
United States
Message 1320358 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 7:28:02 UTC

DNA is the basis of life.
DNA is a molecule. Molecules are the combination of atoms.
Atoms interacting with other atoms is nothing new. It has to do
with which particles comprise the atoms.

We have modified DNA. I do not know if we have combined a DNA molecule from scratch, or just "edited" it. But even in editing, have we not created new life?

If you must have a god consider this..
If god is all around us, and established a natural order
Then god is nature.

So worship nature.

Same thing. Without the fluff and guilt trips.
____________

Janice

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God

Copyright © 2014 University of California