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.
And where did those building blocks come from...and so on and so on. You see the real issue goes beyond what happens on earth.
The building blocks like you and I and everything else including the earth itself, came from stars and are a natural part of the universe...If there are gods they would be every star...Every element came from stars except helium and hydrogen which were there from the beginning...
The building blocks like you and I and everything else including the earth itself, came from stars and are a natural part of the universe...If there are gods they would be every star...Every element came from stars except helium and hydrogen which were there from the beginning...
Indeed. Even the biochemical elements are there. The abiogenesis argument relies on arguing that life could not have got started from non - life.
This is the logical fallacy of arguing that what we can't explain can't be possible. Quite apart from that, if the natural creation of matter from gases, effectively, into stars (we see that process going on NOW) and then into planets is accepted and the fossil evidence of cells into evolved plant and animals forms is accepted, then it is invalid to say that the connecting step is impossible and God mustha dunnit.
It is also invalid to say it is impossible in the sense of unfeasible, since there are some credible hypotheses in place and some experiments done to show that many of the required steps could happen.
The abiogenesis gap for god is shrinking and was never a very good argument anyway as gap for god argument are actually logical fallacies.
The believer may then dismiss logical fallacies along with science and its evidence as mere human opinion. When one does that, the theist has abandoned reason and evidence and opted for Faith as a rationale. They and their Theist worldview have become unreasonable, illogical and unscientific.
That's their choice. I ask only that they then admit it and give up any claims to have and reasonable or evidential validity for their views.
And where did those building blocks come from...and so on and so on. You see the real issue goes beyond what happens on earth.
Oh, I get it! You say 'Where did X come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' - on and on until we no longer have an answer to your 'Where did that come from' question....
....at which point you jump up and shout 'See! You can't answer so the only thing it could be is 'GOD', and MY god too'.
As you have been told, the infinite regression argument must apply to your god also - or are you going to be like so many other theists and claim 'special pleading' for your god whilst not allowing it for anything else?
Oh, I get it! You say 'Where did X come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' - on and on until we no longer have an answer to your 'Where did that come from' question....
....at which point you jump up and shout 'See! You can't answer so the only thing it could be is 'GOD', and MY god too'.
As you have been told, the infinite regression argument must apply to your god also - or are you going to be like so many other theists and claim 'special pleading' for your god whilst not allowing it for anything else?
And that's right, too. Eventually, sooner or later, the argument will come down to 'Who made everything, then?' Sometimes it's produced as soon as one raises any questions about the Bible.
The toughest bit of that is this idea that matter (or even the potential for 'matter' ) could not have evolved from 'nothing' and the idea that 'something' had to be 'there' without needing to be 'made' and is thus 'eternal' and had the 'will' (thanks Mystic) to start it all off.
It is very hard to avoid applying the 'God' - label to such an entity.....is Arequipa going theist?...panic in the streets....
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-22-2012 at 06:16 AM..
Oh, I get it! You say 'Where did X come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' and when we tell you, you say '...and where did that come from' - on and on until we no longer have an answer to your 'Where did that come from' question....
....at which point you jump up and shout 'See! You can't answer so the only thing it could be is 'GOD', and MY god too'.
As you have been told, the infinite regression argument must apply to your god also - or are you going to be like so many other theists and claim 'special pleading' for your god whilst not allowing it for anything else?
No the question has always been how did it all come into existance. For those who believe they believe that God is above the "who made God" question because their belief is that there are things we cannot understand and have to accept about God. But my belief is that God created it to evolve. So there is no threat or reason for science to stop. If it all came from a hydrogen atom then that's great. But my belief is still that that atom came from God and its creation is such that it is able to develope.
No the question has always been how did it all come into existance.
How do you know it wasn't always there ...in some form or other?
Quote:
For those who believe they believe that God is above the "who made God" question because their belief is that there are things we cannot understand and have to accept about God.
Do you accept that there are things that we cannot understand and have to accept about science too?
Quote:
But my belief is that God created it to evolve. So there is no threat or reason for science to stop.
I bet you wouldn't have said that 10 years ago. See me...if old enough to remember the time when Christians would rather cut their wrists than accept evolution in any way, shape or form. Alas for them, as the unrelenting march of scientific discovery has proved their beliefs wrong over and over, they have been forced to accept the undeniable evidence of evolution but, unable to completely let go of their belief in bronze-age mythology, they NOW insist that it was their invisible deity that started it all.
Oh well. I suppose we must accept that as some sort of progression out of the dark ages for you all. At least most of you are not insisting on making idiots of yourselves by denying evolution. Keep it up! You'll catch up with this century if you run just a little harder.
Quote:
If it all came from a hydrogen atom then that's great. But my belief is still that that atom came from God and its creation is such that it is able to develope.
The cell is more complex then the workings of any modern factory, and it takes trillions of cells working in harmony to make up a human body. How could a system so vast happen by accident, with out direction or outside organization.
Imagine taking all the parts required to build a 757 jet and putting them in one place unassembled, then tossing them in the air all at the same time until they fall into an assembled working aircraft that is more probable then the humane body accidentally mutating from a single celled organism.
The cell is more complex then the workings of any modern factory, and it takes trillions of cells working in harmony to make up a human body. How could a system so vast happen by accident, with out direction or outside organization.
Imagine taking all the parts required to build a 757 jet and putting them in one place unassembled, then tossing them in the air all at the same time until they fall into an assembled working aircraft that is more probable then the humane body accidentally mutating from a single celled organism.
If a human body is so complex think about how complex a god must be. I wonder how that came in to being?
The cell is more complex then the workings of any modern factory, and it takes trillions of cells working in harmony to make up a human body. How could a system so vast happen by accident, with out direction or outside organization.
Imagine taking all the parts required to build a 757 jet and putting them in one place unassembled, then tossing them in the air all at the same time until they fall into an assembled working aircraft that is more probable then the humane body accidentally mutating from a single celled organism.
When will theists understand that this kind of argument is stupid. We know the 757 is designed yet the CEO of Boeing does not require that all the 757s or passengers worship him.
Argument from incredulity is only offered by those folk that have no scientific acumen. This is just a version of the watchmaker argument that actually says nothing.
Assuming that we are intelligently designed, so what? (1) Why would the creator require worship and rituals of acknowledgement? (2) What sort of creator would create a destiny for the majority of its creation to suffer eternal damnation? (3) What logical explanation is there to even acknowledge such a being?
Abiogenesis (origins) and evolution (how we became what we are) are two different sciences. The latter is well proven beyond a shadow of doubt with a plethora of evidence to support it. Understanding DNA, mtRNA are relatively new sciences and while DNA appears complex, we have not yet unravelled the whole sequence. Suffice to say we do know that we share 97% of DNA with chimps. We are able to splice DNA to obtain desired results like in better crops and this micro manipulation does not mean we are using gawds building blocks.
Theists now infer that DNA is how gawd set it all in motion called theistic evolution but we have yet to see any published peer reviewed paper by any of these pseudo scientists. All they have done, in an attempt to remain relevant, is to slap on a godunnit posit label on the real science of ToE.
Thus far, there is ZERO evidence for creation. As for all the religious artefacts like the Ark, the Ark of the Covenant which would prove the ME god's interaction with mankind are conveniently nowhere to be found.
Because we now know constraints wrt genetics and interbreeding between siblings and cousins (shallow gene pool) the idea of an Adam and Eve can only be taken as a mythical uneducated guess.
It is best to at least know the basics before making such mundane statements, go back to school and learn.
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.
