Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However we began/came into existence, we began from something; by a process that is currently incomprehensible. That something from which we originated may be organic, inorganic, or beyond our comprehension. Created, born, or materialized, the words we use makes no difference. One day in the distant future we will discover the truth, until then keep an open mind to all possibilities.
I call this notion "seeding". We reproduce using proteins. All life uses proteins. The earth will probably reproduce using proteins. What does that tell us?
However we began/came into existence, we began from something; by a process that is currently incomprehensible. That something from which we originated may be organic, inorganic, or beyond our comprehension. Created, born, or materialized, the words we use makes no difference. One day in the distant future we will discover the truth, until then keep an open mind to all possibilities.
EL
We are in total agreement here. Where we don't know how we got here, all explanations are possible. It is progress if at least nobody rules out either God or something from nothing. neither seem to make much sense, so 'Nobody knows' is the best answer. I hope i don't need to labour the point that not knowing whether god dunnit or not does not mean that He did until we can 100% disprove that He didn't.
However, I think that actually the process of beginning to our self -awareness is at least hypothetically explainable and indeed supported by evidence along a lot of the way. I set it out (as it seems to me) on the 2 reasons..thread. # 27. If that is not so misconstrued a summary of the current understanding that it stacks up as a general working hypothesis, then 'inorganic' origins is the only theory that fits the facts as we know them.
In that case choosing some other theory is going against the facts.
From the link in your OP "Atheists believe life evolved from a combination of inorganic elements mixing together. The problem is that both theories ignore the laws of nature."
Aside from what is provable or probable never mind what is believed, I think that it is the atheist -preferred theory and indeed the science - preferred theory that is now in accordance with the laws of nature, known facts and indeed logic and reason and it is all the other hypotheses that either have no facts or laws of nature supporting them or indeed go against them.
Why would one hold to such hypothetical beliefs in despite of the evidence?
I don't know that he has no idea that what you think you know, he doesn't know or that he has no idea what he doesn't know.
I don't know. Sometimes I think knowing that I don't know is smarter than knowing what I know. And I never use what I don't know to support a claim other than I don't know. I Can't wait to learn what I didn't know. For people that did know, things like the higgs was a non event, it was just another piece to test the "engineering the truth" puzzle. it would have been way cooler to have been wrong. Of "cooler" doesn't mean "better for us.".
That is it. While we almost think we understand it, there in enough unknown about it to serve as a gap for God. They are running out of them these days, so they can't be too choosy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
