godisabullet
New Member
I think the op could have done everyone a favour and stated his original proposal differently:
"God exists and he created everything. Prove me wrong."
"God exists and he created everything. Prove me wrong."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Japhia888 said:Fine-tuning starts with inflation , wich must be finely tuned to 10 of the 10^120 degree.
Japhia888 said:the strength of the strong nuclear force. If it were about two percent weaker
Japhia888 said:it seems conservative to say that it was one chance out of 100 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.
The law of thermodynamics is irrelevant because the universe has not always been in this state.Japhia888 said:So you believe the universe has existed without beginning, eternally ? so how about the energy and second law of thermodynamics ?
Prove it.Japhia888 said:and the impossibility to have infinity in reality ?
See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.Japhia888 said:But, lets keep your answer as valid : what mechanism do you suggest for the occurrence of the first life ?
Prove it.Thats simply not true.
See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.proposing what mechanisms exactly for abiogenesis?
EGAD! Suppose you would actually read wikipedia! I know, studying is scary.nope. we have a debate here. So you are asked to provide answers, and propose your world view.
Chance isn't a mechanism. See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.but you have failed so far to provide other mechanisms than chance.
See page 1 and 2 of this thread. There's your answer for better explanations than God Did It.Sure, thats possible. But you failed so far, to show me why i should be wrong. provide better , more compelling and convincing explanations, and i'll might change position.
That would've exposed his intentions, though, so he avoided phrasing it that way because he knows he carries the burden of proof. And it's just not that easy for him to prove that something came from nothing.godisabullet said:I think the op could have done everyone a favour and stated his original proposal differently:
"God exists and he created everything. Prove me wrong."
borrofburi said:You have a false trichotomy. The true dichotomy is that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing. You prefer that "something has always existed" which you say is a sentient magic being; the problem is: this does not solve the problem. Something has still always existed, and that still makes just as much sense as something coming from nothing; that you label the thing you suppose to have always existed (and ascribe attributes to it) with a fancy word does NOT remove the problems of having always existed.Japhia888 said:a eternal universe, based on the arguments already presented
and a finite universe, ex nihilo, without a cause at all.
Bullshit. You have completely misconstrued both thermodynamics and information theory. Information CAN arise from statistical processes; in fact, if I roll a die and keep a running tally of the dice rolls, the result is a long string of information.
Indeed a crystal contains a very large amount of information;
Moreover language was not intelligently designed, and indeed was refined through a process that very well mirrors evolution.
Independent Vision said:No. This is where you just don't UNDERSTAND. God is not the best explanation!
An invisible, omnipotent, never-created but always alive being which is immaterial created a material universe because he was... what? bored?
It's still material created out of nothing!
And if the material was there all along there was no need for God.
Hence... God is not an explanation at all, not even a bad one.
Just one that gives you warm fuzzies.
he_who_is_nobody said:If it is not provided than your idea about a god(s) creating life on earth is unscientific.
What features of the natural world are better explained with the Genesis account? This would be news to me.
Story said:1. What evidence could you find that would demonstrate that something happened because of magic instead of some naturalistic explanation?
2. If you don't know how something happened, "magic" will always fit the gap.
3. Assuming that it was magic that caused a certain thing, attempting any further inquiry into that thing is halted. We have no idea of what the nature of magic is.
4. All the following things were previously thought to be purely magical/supernatural, all further inquiry was abandoned because of these thoughts.
- Lightning
- Diseases
- Creation of Species
- Rain
- The Harvest
- Epilepsy
- Hereditary Genetics
- Death
- and the list goes on...
If scientists assume god did these things, then why would we ever search for naturalistic explanations?
And if you believe that god has anything to do with the world (like the weather and seasons). Then you should know that these have naturalistic explanations too, why can't god and natural explanation work together? Why do they have to contradict?
Japhia888 said:that is a argument of authority, and argumentum ad populum. I could make the exact same argument, based on the numerous theist scientists, and the shere uncountable number of people around the globe, and of all ages, which do and did believe in God. That does not lead anywhere.
Japhia, you are grabbing at straws here. If you would actually try to think about anything that is being said, maybe you could help your arguments, but you're not. You're just trying to parrot something you've read somewhere and it shows.
Japhia888 said:a eternal universe, based on the arguments already presented
and a finite universe, ex nihilo, without a cause at all.
Japhia888 said:borrofburi said:You have a false trichotomy. The true dichotomy is that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing. You prefer that "something has always existed" which you say is a sentient magic being; the problem is: this does not solve the problem. Something has still always existed, and that still makes just as much sense as something coming from nothing; that you label the thing you suppose to have always existed (and ascribe attributes to it) with a fancy word does NOT remove the problems of having always existed.
I believe God did not exist " always " , since this implies time. I believe God existed in a timeless eternity, without beginning, and without end. That makes perfectly sense. To believe, the universe existed eternally, does not make sense, based on the arguments already presented.
Japhia888 said:Bullshit. You have completely misconstrued both thermodynamics and information theory. Information CAN arise from statistical processes; in fact, if I roll a die and keep a running tally of the dice rolls, the result is a long string of information.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm
Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)
10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10-20 for a functional enzyme
10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.
Bear in mind that Mathematical Zero is 10-50. Any value smaller than this is relegated by mathematicians to the realm of 'never happening'.
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).
Japhia888 said:Indeed a crystal contains a very large amount of information;
nope, it does not. Thats just a pattern.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm
Patterns are simply created by matter in energy. That's all that's there. In the world of patterns there is never an exact copy. To have information you have to matter and energy and will. Somebody has to decide to create information. Somebody has to write the music. The interesting thing about information is that you can have exact copies of it. You can have an exact copy of a book. I can send you an email and what can you do with it? You can read it on your screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud. You could read it over the telephone. You could save it as a Microsoft Word document. You could post it on the Internet as a web page.
Japhia888 said:Moreover language was not intelligently designed, and indeed was refined through a process that very well mirrors evolution.
wow, amazing. how do you know ?
This is a copout, a fancy way to try to dodge the problem, but it doesn't work. "timeless eternity" is a meaningless phrase (if it's not, please rigidly define it; or, more precisely, as has been pointed out, please propose what it means to "exist" "outside of time", because all definitions of existence that I know of include a time element); it's rather like saying "this object is blue outside of colour" or "this object is green without light".Japhia888 said:borrofburi said:You have a false trichotomy. The true dichotomy is that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing. You prefer that "something has always existed" which you say is a sentient magic being; the problem is: this does not solve the problem. Something has still always existed, and that still makes just as much sense as something coming from nothing; that you label the thing you suppose to have always existed (and ascribe attributes to it) with a fancy word does NOT remove the problems of having always existed.
I believe God did not exist " always " , since this implies time. I believe God existed in a timeless eternity, without beginning, and without end. That makes perfectly sense. To believe, the universe existed eternally, does not make sense, based on the arguments already presented.
(this is the only part that's relevant, the rest is worthless tripe that is irrelevant because it's just some guy's opinion)Japhia888 said:Bullshit. You have completely misconstrued both thermodynamics and information theory. Information CAN arise from statistical processes; in fact, if I roll a die and keep a running tally of the dice rolls, the result is a long string of information.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm
Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)
10-19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10-20 for a functional enzyme
10-130 for the histone H4 molecule
10-40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.
First: you've moved the goalposts. Second: please define, in a rigid matter, the difference between "pattern" and "information", and please specify how a "pattern" does not contain information (because, damn, I wonder why my grandma's always takling about buying fancy new crocheting patterns if there's no information contained in them...). The answer is: the way Marshall and other IDers (and young earth cerationists) do this "information has to come from an intelligence" game is to do it buy (1) borrowing terminology from information theory and (2) IGNORING the rigid definition of "information". They NEVER define "information" in a rigorous manner, and instead dance around it and make bold claims that are entirely insubstantial and unfalsifiable without a rigid agreed upon definition of information.Japhia888 said:Indeed a crystal contains a very large amount of information;
nope, it does not. Thats just a pattern.
We can look back upon the way language has morphed and changed, and the various ways communication has evolved among other species and conclude that, at the very least, it is evolving and has evolved (even if, I suppose, you can argue "magic man done it" for the inception of language).Japhia888 said:Moreover language was not intelligently designed, and indeed was refined through a process that very well mirrors evolution.
wow, amazing. how do you know ?
Japhia888 said:Independent Vision said:No. This is where you just don't UNDERSTAND. God is not the best explanation!
absolutes don't exist here. We just say our personal opinions.
It's still material created out of nothing!
that is certainly baffling. But what is your alternative ? nothing, aka a inefficent cause made everything ? that is certainly magic at its best. Can you really imagine, that from the absence of any thing, something could arise ? does that make sense to you ? is it logic ?
So you think, science is wrong, when it postulates a Big Bang, which leads logically to believe, the universe is finite in time ?
Just one that gives you warm fuzzies.
honestly, keep your warm fuzzies for you. thats more , something for the feminine......
Japhia888 said:absolutes don't exist here. We just say our personal opinions.
what does Gods motivation have to do with God as the best explanation for our existence ?
that is certainly baffling. But what is your alternative ? nothing, aka a inefficent cause made everything ? that is certainly magic at its best. Can you really imagine, that from the absence of any thing, something could arise ? does that make sense to you ? is it logic ?
So you think, science is wrong, when it postulates a Big Bang, which leads logically to believe, the universe is finite in time ?
when the premise is wrong, the deduction coulnt be right, isnt it ?
honestly, keep your warm fuzzies for you. thats more , something for the feminine......
Japhia888 said:Rivius said:It's life's own ability to evolve that had it adapt toward the harsh conditions in the world. The mere wastefulness over the years of specie, upon specie, upon specie to get to us is just silly if done by some sort of intelligent God.
Well, i certainly don't believe in common ancestry...so your argument is pointless to me.
Well, if it is not natural and un-testable than there is really no way of knowing about it. Science has been the only way humans have been able to observe the world around us and find real answers.Japhia888 said:And why should it be scientific, and be testable through operational science ?
Actually yes. We have tested macroevolution in both the field and the lab. Macroevolution is simply change between species, which we have observed. Microevolution is change within a species.Japhia888 said:can you test macro-evolution ? no ? so why do you believe, its true ?
I read your first post. There is nothing in your first post that answers my question. Therefore, I will ask it again. What features of the natural world are better explained with Genesis?Japhia888 said:see my first post, and you will know
Is one needed? If so, why? And, why must someone prove how the universe was created or believe in a god(s)? Saying I dont know is ok, japhia. We may figure it out someday, but we dont have to worship zeus or allah or yahweh or leprechauns or pretzels or any other mythical beings until then.Japhia888 said:then lets put it this way :
so far, nobody has brought in a different mechanism than CHANCE for
- the existence of the universe
Japhia888 said:- the finetuning of the constants i mentioned
Japhia888 said:- DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.
chance resumes to simply " nothing " . Nothing , aka a inefficient cause, should be a more rational, more compelling, simply a better explanation, than a intelligent designer, aka a efficent cause for all that exists ?
Japhia888 said:that explanation might satisfy you ( and i really don't know why ) Certainly it does not me. Neither do i understand, why such thinking should be reasonable. Based on what should this be a league of reason ? based on NOTHING ????
No.Andiferous said:Can you tell me the events of every place in the world on August 12, 1400 BC?
for example, you not being able to present evidence, natural mechanisms to be more plausible. Indeed, so far you and anyone else, have not. Chance has so far failed as efficient cause of the creation of the universe, its finetuning, and abiogenesis, to convince me, being a good explanation.
but we know , how improbable is, the fine tuning of the universe to happen by pure luck. and so abiogenesis. So my position is not based on the lack of knowledge, quit the contrary is the case.
Unless God reveals himself to us. what i believe, he has done very clearly.
however , modern science shows us more and more, that things are far more complex, and not the contrary is the case.
because modern science relies on a naturalistic philosophy. Everything shall be explained within our universe.
And if you believe that god has anything to do with the world (like the weather and seasons). Then you should know that these have naturalistic explanations too, why can't god and natural explanation work together? Why do they have to contradict?
i didnt say that.
Japhia888 said:that is a argument of authority, and argumentum ad populum. I could make the exact same argument, based on the numerous theist scientists, and the shere uncountable number of people around the globe, and of all ages, which do and did believe in God. That does not lead anywhere.
Japhia, you are grabbing at straws here. If you would actually try to think about anything that is being said, maybe you could help your arguments, but you're not. You're just trying to parrot something you've read somewhere and it shows.
yes, mostly i do. But the authors which i parrot were so smart, that so far, nobody here was able to present a better explanation for our existence. I at least be humble enough to learn from them. Better than rather held to unreasonable beliefs and a unthoughtful position.