Did Nothing Create Everything?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    They created protolife - something that could evolve into life. All you need is something that can replicate itself and inherit characteristics for evolution to begin. From there on, the protolife began evolving into what we know today as life.
    I definitely have faith in the scientific process. So do you, when you think about it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I know that life exists.
    I know that God exists.

    Only life creates life in the natural world.

    The hypothesis that an Eternal God (Life) created all other life fits what we know about life very well.

    It seems simple to me.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Their experiment did not evolve into life.

    In my opinion, you are going back into fantasy and wishful thinking, that is unsupported by the experiment. Just my opinion.

    By the way, I have been wondering why unbounded extrapolation is so popular in science? Any ideas?

    Not saying you are doing that, exactly.
    Just wondering about it in general?

    It really makes science, as a whole, a lot less trustworthy.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Brainwashed much?
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    This highlights a problem with the word "faith" that I have discussed at length before.

    When you say you have faith in science, you mean only that you have confidence or trust that science can give good answers to questions about nature. But that confidence is not blind confidence - it is a deduction (or perhaps induction) based on the historical successes of science. In other words, it's an evidence-based expression of your confidence.

    In contrast, when religious people talk about faith they mean believing something in the absence of what scientists would regard as good evidence. They talk about things like "the faith in things unseen", which boils down to believing that things are there even though there's no good evidence-based reason to do so. If they talk about faith as trust, again they don't mean an evidence-based trust. They mean something more along the lines of trusting in an imagined being that they "trust" exists, despite the lack of evidence.

    SetiAlpha's posts in this thread provide an excellent example of her understanding of the word "faith". She claims that we atheists have "faith-based" beliefs, giving our belief in evolution and abiogenesis as examples. But our belief in evolution is an evidence-based one, not a conclusion reached in the absence of evidence. Since SetiAlpha can't conceive of the kind of tentative hypothesising that somebody of a scientific inclination adopts when considering a matter like abiogenesis, she wrongly concludes that a belief in abiogenesis must be analogous to her own religious faith in the Garden of Eden or Noah's Ark.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I'm with you about life.

    How do you know that God exists?

    How do you know that?

    So does the hypothesis that a long time ago some non-living chemicals came together in just the right way to start life.

    The difference is that one of these two ideas is falsifiable, while the other is not. That's why abiogenesis is science, whereas Creationism is just a particularly misguided form of religion.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It depends what you mean by that, exactly.

    Research scientists typically keep a lot of competing hypotheses in play when they are doing their jobs. Their work involves imagining what might cause something else, and ways it might do that. Science requires imagination.

    On the other hand, you talk about "unbounded extrapolation". In science, experiment and observation are king. The natural world doesn't care how beautiful your pet theory is; if experiments and observations don't support it, then it had to go in the bin. In other words, the boundaries that you claim do not exist are very clear in science. The ultimate arbiter of whether a given scientific idea is right or wrong is nature itself.

    The more you talk about science, the clearer it becomes that you don't have the first clue about how it's done.

    It's hardly surprising that the Creationist fundamentalists managed to play you for a sucker.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Maybe she is a fundamentalist trying to sucker others?
     
  12. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    In my opinion you are setting up a straw man argument here.

    Here is your, very good description of faith in science, with a few revisions to describe the Christian Faith as it truly is.

    When you say you have faith in God, you mean only that you have confidence or trust in God, that He can give good answers to questions about nature, because He created it. But that confidence is not blind confidence - it is a deduction (or perhaps induction) based on many different historical writings, written down by many different authors, which have been recorded over the centuries, in some cases, by eyewitnesses. In other words, it's a historically evidence-based expression of your confidence.

    And there is also very real evidence for some of the miracles that God performed in those writings still on the ground today, which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

    To say that the Jewish and/or Christian Faiths are baseless is certainly not accurate. It is a caricature, or straw man argument, not reality.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    This is all nice. You refer to God as "He"? What if God is transgender?

     
  14. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    James R just started referring to me as a “she”, which is fine, but somehow I just became a Grandpa, so? I don’t know?

    Great question!!!

    I must be confused!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ask her how it all works?
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    If God is transgender.

    I know!!! It's a great question!!!
     
  16. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Loved the video you posted!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Why?
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    No it isn't. You have not drawn the same conclusion that scientists do.
    I guess you don't.
    Intelligent Design can not be "proved" until you can provide empirical evidence of the designer. And Intelligent Design proponents don't seem to be making any effort to do that.
    On the contrary, it doesn't matter how complex the processes are. Even an intelligence can only work with existing processes. The processes will work with or without intelligent input.
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Well, it isn't "random chance" so much as the inevitable and predictable result of chemical reactions. Life is made of chemicals. The difference between living and non-living is just a different set of reactions. The idea that "you can't get there from here" is pretty silly.
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    But you don't know what "know" means.
     
  21. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    It would indeed be better if you could talk directly with James Tour. He is an expert in the field of the origin of life, I certainly am not. But you can at least see his point of view, for your own personal review, if you wish to, in his video lectures.

    You have more really great comments I will try and respond to when I get a chance.
     
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Ah yes! Indeed!
    What does “you” mean in your last post.

    Are “you” only equivalent to a set of chemical reactions?

    If so, is there a “real you” beyond those chemicals and atoms bouncing off of each other?

    Or are you just a predetermined set of chemical reactions, unable to do anything other than what you are doing?

    Is that all you are, just a biochemical robot?
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Because it showed how unfair some of today’s ideas can become, in a very funny way. That scenario could actually happen! And it is so ridiculous, it becomes funny.
     

Share This Page