Does God Exist?

[james bond]

You do realize that matter and energy are equivalent, right?

No. Is a dingbat the equivalent of ding?

You can create matter, but not energy.

So whether I say matter or energy can’t exist without creating space time it like saying the same thing, right.

I think you're confused. People may think matter and energy are the same because they are found together. I agree both need space time. But then you can't create energy. Thus, big bang is impossible.

So what did God do?

so you understand the concept of space but are confused by space time. Space is the 3 dimensions represented by x, y and z coordinates. The 4th dimension t or time represents or is a measurement of expansion. Time doesn’t really exist it’s just a convenient way of demarcating the expansion of space. Space time is usually shown as a cone since the universe is relatively flat.

I’m not your enemy. So stop acting like I am.

C'mon you're just making stuff up. d = r * t, so t = d/r.

You fly from SF to NYC in a jet and your watch shows it takes you almost 6 hours. I go in the transporter and my watch shows less than a second has elapsed. Time exists and it's not always based on space expansion. Are you just saying that to fit big bang? What are you missing? Hint: Einstein.

Are you really an engineer?

And why does my post make you think I am your enemy?

Trying to educate you on science is a waste of time.

I just debunked your space and time definition . It's not just the light cone.

And God creating light first and space and time from the void is backed up by science while you just have a scrunched up face.

 

[Hollie]

What happens to the last god if we crack the code to the universe and are able to answer these questions?

Someone opined about this decades ago, saying that when scientists are able to answer these question, they will find the theologians there ahead of them.

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

 

[james bond]

Maybe so. However, I've never met a Christian who didn't think others would be going to hell but not them.

Basically, we know via the Holy Spirit. That said, Blaise Pascal wasn't sure if he would be "annihilated or unhappy forever." I think he knew.

Actually, you know no such thing.

As with religion and ‘god,’ the notion of a ‘holy spirit’ is a creation of man; just as there’s no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, so too is there neither heaven nor hell.

If you can't find the Holy Spirit, then you have no God. This is what faith brings. It's means future doom.

I think in the atheists case, one has to repent first and then have faith. Otherwise, it doesn't happen, the Holy Spirit doesn't come.

ETA: I think the Holy Spirit is the most powerful relative to our world and universe. He controls quantum mechanics and more. He can destroy it all.

 

[Hollie]

Maybe so. However, I've never met a Christian who didn't think others would be going to hell but not them.

Basically, we know via the Holy Spirit. That said, Blaise Pascal wasn't sure if he would be "annihilated or unhappy forever." I think he knew.

Actually, you know no such thing.

As with religion and ‘god,’ the notion of a ‘holy spirit’ is a creation of man; just as there’s no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, so too is there neither heaven nor hell.

If you can't find the Holy Spirit, then you have no God. This is what faith brings. It's means future doom.

I think in the atheists case, one has to repent first and then have faith. Otherwise, it doesn't happen, the Holy Spirit doesn't come.

ETA: I think the Holy Spirit is the most powerful relative to our world and universe. He controls quantum mechanics and more. He can destroy it all.

Will the Christian gods retroactively supply applications to the Christian heavens for all those who lived before the invention of Christianity?

 

[Newtonian]

Maybe. But I think there are some disputed texts in the JW canon.

Rare, but you are correct. However, my favorite Bible translation alerts the reader when manuscripts are variant. A good example is Psalms 82:1 -

Much more common in the NT than the OT, I think. Maybe because we have more of the NT to compare.

Is it hard to know what to believe if you don't really know what God or Jesus said and did? Or does it even matter, faith is a better guide anyway?

Faith without accurate knowledge is blind faith. The Bible directs us to "Prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV). In the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 the Greek words used involve "evident demonstration" and "convincing evidence." Blind faith is not an accurate guide but faith based on accurate knowledge is (John 17:3,17).

If Jesus did not quote Psalms 82:6 at John 10:34-36 (from the LXX btw) then who did?

There is another example of corruption of Scripture - one that occurs about 7,000 times in Scripture! It is the removal of the Divine Name. For example, the greatest commandment in the Bible according to Jesus is at Deuteronomy 6:4,5 which Jesus would have quoted accurately (Matthew 22:37-40). Mark records Jesus' quote more extensively here:

Mark 12:28-34
One of the scribes who had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first* of all?”+ 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’+ 31 The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’+ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to him: “Teacher, you spoke well, in line with truth, ‘He is One, and there is no other besides him’;+ 33 and to love him with one’s whole heart, with one’s whole understanding, and with one’s whole strength and to love one’s neighbor as oneself is worth far more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”+ 34 At this Jesus, discerning that he had answered intelligently, said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” But no one had the courage to question him anymore.+

The original Hebrew text for Deuteronomy 6:4,5 which Jesus is accurately quoting has the Divine Name 3 times. However, most Bible translations remove that name (Hebrew H3068/Yehovah) and insert "Lord" (Hebrew H113/adon; H136/adonay (emphatic) and Greek kyrios/Lord - and do this about 7,000 times!

One might ask, though, who removed the Divine Name from the greatest commandment in the Bible (according to Jesus)? There is evidence. For example: LXX (Greek Septuagint) retained the Divine Name until after Jesus' time - we know this from manuscript copies of LXX from before and during Jesus' time. But by the time of Origen's Hexapla, some Greek translations had removed the Divine Name and replaced it with Greek kyrios/Lord - that would be the late 2nd century CE.

Who removed the Divine Name is an interesting study subject. It is noteworthy that only God's name was removed - not other personal names - not even the names of false gods were removed!

But there is plenty of evidence that the Divine Name is found 3 times in Deuteronomy 6:4,5!

 

[alang1216]

Well we don’t know this is the first occurrence, right?

Do you really believe the organic micro machines of living organisms are happenstance? Have you seen the animations of the assembly line like machinations of these organic machines?

You think intelligence developed on earth before man? Zero evidence for that I'd say.

Yes I do. Simple natural laws can give rise to amazing things. Picture trillions of mindless molecules floating in water, what are the odds that they will form themselves into a regular geometric solid where every one is situated exactly like every other? Happens all the time, they are called crystals. No intelligence required.

The intelligence is in the laws of nature which predestined those things. It’s not an accident that life and intelligence is programmed into the fabric of existence.

You are only partly correct - normal for us humans, btw.

The fine tuned laws and properties of our universe allow for the creation of life and for intelligent life - however these do not evolve by chance.

For example, the precisely fine tuned rate for the expansion of our universe allowed for stars including supernovae to exist - and for supernovae to produce the elements needed for the creation of life.

Also the properties of these elements and complex compounds/molecules of these elements allow them to be arranged as informational rather than simply statistical molecules - for example: informational molecules (which also require translation and messenger molecules (e.g. messenger RNA).

However, information does not occur in molecules by chance - entropy works in the opposite direction - hence the difference between dead molecules and living molecules - at death information decays or leaves so that the functions of life cannot proceed.

For life to come into existence, informational molecules not only need to be created, along with translator molecules - but they need to be in the same place at the same time!

Btw - crystals are repetitive while informational molecules are variant.

The difficulty in creating life (which human creators cannot do) is illustrated in the environments needed to synthesize all of the 20 amino acids required for life:

Some amino acids prefer hot, others prefer cold for synthesis. Some prefer acid, others neutral or alkaline. Some prefer wet, others prefer dry - some even require condensing agents. You cannot have hot & cold, acid and alkaline, wet and dry in the same place at the same time. Unless, of course, an intelligent chemist is involved - of superior intelligence to us humans.

Would you all like me to post details as to the results of synthesis experiments like those of Miller - Urey, etc.? Suffice it to say for now that most are unaware that the primary chemical reaction product is formic acid, not amino acids. And that most amino acids and other molecules produced (the chemical reaction product proportions) are mostly useless (or worse) to life.

And, finally, chance synthesis of polypeptides from these amino acids and then further to proteins are always statistical, not informational. [chance formation of even statistical proteins has an incredibly low probability given favorable primordial soups.]

I should add the need for exact 3-d fit of enzymes and receptors for the life processes to proceed.

I think you are confusing life that began 4 billion years ago with the life we see today. The first life may have been as simple as a molecule that was able to grow and divide, a self-replicating molecule like that would have become subject to Natural Selection. No intelligence required.

The first life may have been a clay:
Any self-replicating mechanism which does not make a perfect copy (mutation) will experience genetic variation and will create variants of itself. These variants will be subject to natural selection, since some will be better at surviving in their current environment than others and will out-breed them.

 

[Newtonian]

But really, you should ask yourself this: why would any God torture people because of their sincere beliefs?

Because that is the one commandment God wants us to obey -- that his Son Jesus died for our sins. Today, it's a positive test.

With Adam and Eve, God gave them a negative test of not eating fruit from a specific tree in heaven.

So why would God put today's non-believers and sinners to the Lake of Fire over it. Because God the Father hates sin and cannot be with sin. The non-believers reap what they sow by being separated from God. Jesus cleanses our sins and thus the only way to heaven.

As for the pain of burning in hell forever, we do not know what the Lake of Fire is really all about. It is a prophecy and propecies are allegory. For example, the entrance to heaven is not the pearly gate or wide gate, but the narrow gate and door. The door refers to Jesus and we go through the door and go on the narrow path. The others take the easy path and think their path is the way to heaven or salvation.

But didn't God create EVERYTHING? Why would He create a world in which sin is even possible? So, didn't He create sin, too?

No, God just got things started. From Adam's sin, Satan got domain of the world. In the Bible, he is called the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air." Yes, lower case 'god' that atheists unknowingly use to pay homage to Satan is in the Bible. God had to bring death into the world or else Satan would have taken over heaven. Sin was created by Adam and we became flesh and blood creatures. Jesus said no flesh and blood creatures will enter heaven, "I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50. One has to be of flesh and bone, which Adam had, to enter heaven. Jesus had new flesh and bone after his resurrection. Thus, you and everyone else being of flesh and blood means death. This is one of the evidence of God. If we live to old age, then we will eventually die of that which has to do with blood -- heart attack and disease, cancer, and stroke.

We basically agree.

However, I am curious why you would think flesh and bone would survive better in outer space than flesh and blood? See the context of 1 Cor. 15:50.

Remember I am into science as well. What is the definition of spirit scientifically? (1 Peter 3:18)

 

[alang1216]

[In the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 the Greek words used involve "evident demonstration" and "convincing evidence."

Ironic that you'd quote Hebrews since that is, according to some scholars, a letter written in the name of Paul but not written by him.

 

[Hollie]

Maybe. But I think there are some disputed texts in the JW canon.

Rare, but you are correct. However, my favorite Bible translation alerts the reader when manuscripts are variant. A good example is Psalms 82:1 -

Much more common in the NT than the OT, I think. Maybe because we have more of the NT to compare.

Is it hard to know what to believe if you don't really know what God or Jesus said and did? Or does it even matter, faith is a better guide anyway?

Faith without accurate knowledge is blind faith. The Bible directs us to "Prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV). In the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 the Greek words used involve "evident demonstration" and "convincing evidence." Blind faith is not an accurate guide but faith based on accurate knowledge is (John 17:3,17).

If Jesus did not quote Psalms 82:6 at John 10:34-36 (from the LXX btw) then who did?

There is another example of corruption of Scripture - one that occurs about 7,000 times in Scripture! It is the removal of the Divine Name. For example, the greatest commandment in the Bible according to Jesus is at Deuteronomy 6:4,5 which Jesus would have quoted accurately (Matthew 22:37-40). Mark records Jesus' quote more extensively here:

Mark 12:28-34
One of the scribes who had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first* of all?”+ 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’+ 31 The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’+ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to him: “Teacher, you spoke well, in line with truth, ‘He is One, and there is no other besides him’;+ 33 and to love him with one’s whole heart, with one’s whole understanding, and with one’s whole strength and to love one’s neighbor as oneself is worth far more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”+ 34 At this Jesus, discerning that he had answered intelligently, said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” But no one had the courage to question him anymore.+

The original Hebrew text for Deuteronomy 6:4,5 which Jesus is accurately quoting has the Divine Name 3 times. However, most Bible translations remove that name (Hebrew H3068/Yehovah) and insert "Lord" (Hebrew H113/adon; H136/adonay (emphatic) and Greek kyrios/Lord - and do this about 7,000 times!

One might ask, though, who removed the Divine Name from the greatest commandment in the Bible (according to Jesus)? There is evidence. For example: LXX (Greek Septuagint) retained the Divine Name until after Jesus' time - we know this from manuscript copies of LXX from before and during Jesus' time. But by the time of Origen's Hexapla, some Greek translations had removed the Divine Name and replaced it with Greek kyrios/Lord - that would be the late 2nd century CE.

Who removed the Divine Name is an interesting study subject. It is noteworthy that only God's name was removed - not other personal names - not even the names of false gods were removed!

But there is plenty of evidence that the Divine Name is found 3 times in Deuteronomy 6:4,5!

And then there's this:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

James 2:24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Galatians 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

"Faith” is not a requirement to understand the natural world. Holy texts laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; surely not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those who have need to follow.

 

[Newtonian]

Well we don’t know this is the first occurrence, right?

Do you really believe the organic micro machines of living organisms are happenstance? Have you seen the animations of the assembly line like machinations of these organic machines?

You think intelligence developed on earth before man? Zero evidence for that I'd say.

Yes I do. Simple natural laws can give rise to amazing things. Picture trillions of mindless molecules floating in water, what are the odds that they will form themselves into a regular geometric solid where every one is situated exactly like every other? Happens all the time, they are called crystals. No intelligence required.

The intelligence is in the laws of nature which predestined those things. It’s not an accident that life and intelligence is programmed into the fabric of existence.

You are only partly correct - normal for us humans, btw.

The fine tuned laws and properties of our universe allow for the creation of life and for intelligent life - however these do not evolve by chance.

For example, the precisely fine tuned rate for the expansion of our universe allowed for stars including supernovae to exist - and for supernovae to produce the elements needed for the creation of life.

Also the properties of these elements and complex compounds/molecules of these elements allow them to be arranged as informational rather than simply statistical molecules - for example: informational molecules (which also require translation and messenger molecules (e.g. messenger RNA).

However, information does not occur in molecules by chance - entropy works in the opposite direction - hence the difference between dead molecules and living molecules - at death information decays or leaves so that the functions of life cannot proceed.

For life to come into existence, informational molecules not only need to be created, along with translator molecules - but they need to be in the same place at the same time!

Btw - crystals are repetitive while informational molecules are variant.

The difficulty in creating life (which human creators cannot do) is illustrated in the environments needed to synthesize all of the 20 amino acids required for life:

Some amino acids prefer hot, others prefer cold for synthesis. Some prefer acid, others neutral or alkaline. Some prefer wet, others prefer dry - some even require condensing agents. You cannot have hot & cold, acid and alkaline, wet and dry in the same place at the same time. Unless, of course, an intelligent chemist is involved - of superior intelligence to us humans.

Would you all like me to post details as to the results of synthesis experiments like those of Miller - Urey, etc.? Suffice it to say for now that most are unaware that the primary chemical reaction product is formic acid, not amino acids. And that most amino acids and other molecules produced (the chemical reaction product proportions) are mostly useless (or worse) to life.

And, finally, chance synthesis of polypeptides from these amino acids and then further to proteins are always statistical, not informational. [chance formation of even statistical proteins has an incredibly low probability given favorable primordial soups.]

I should add the need for exact 3-d fit of enzymes and receptors for the life processes to proceed.

I think you are confusing life that began 4 billion years ago with the life we see today. The first life may have been as simple as a molecule that was able to grow and divide, a self-replicating molecule like that would have become subject to Natural Selection. No intelligence required.

The first life may have been a clay:
Any self-replicating mechanism which does not make a perfect copy (mutation) will experience genetic variation and will create variants of itself. These variants will be subject to natural selection, since some will be better at surviving in their current environment than others and will out-breed them.

No, I am not. But specifically what forms of life do you have evidence existed billions of years ago on earth? And what forms of life do chemical evolutionists in their origin of life synthesis experiments favor - and with what environment? Please be specific.

No form of life can exist without informational molecules which require an intelligent chemist to produce.

Please note that earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which requires 3 things:

1. A significant atmosphere of carbon dioxide (CO2) - Britannica notes the carbonate deposits have a carbon content of over 64 million petagrams - roughly the same as in the atmosphere of Venus today.

2. Vast oceans - likely earth covered with water as stated in Genesis 1:2. The oceans dissolve CO2 (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is).

3. But to form carbonates, these waters would not only require carbonate ions (CO3) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3) but also 'metal' ions of Calcium (Ca), Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K).

So what molecules do you propose could synthesize in that environment when the evidence in chemistry is that the ions of Ca, Na and K would combine with any molecules (not just carbonate ions) in the water which would make them useless to life.

Also note that the most abundant element in earth's crust is Oxygen. Most chemical evolutionists claim Oxygen was not present in early earth's atmosphere. So, then, how did earth's crustal minerals become oxidized without Oxygen?

Many chemical evolutionists postulate both water and UV (ultraviolet radiation) in origin of life synthesis experiments. They ignore a basic fact in chemistry: UV radiation causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O): 2 H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2 (but via extremely reactive elemental Oxygen = O). If water was present and UV radiation was present, free Oxygen would also be present. Oxygen destroys most starter molecules needed for a chemical pathway to life.

So, minerals were oxidized but molecules required for life were not oxidized? How do you propose that happened if not by an intelligent chemist?

 

[Indeependent]

Well we don’t know this is the first occurrence, right?

Do you really believe the organic micro machines of living organisms are happenstance? Have you seen the animations of the assembly line like machinations of these organic machines?

You think intelligence developed on earth before man? Zero evidence for that I'd say.

Yes I do. Simple natural laws can give rise to amazing things. Picture trillions of mindless molecules floating in water, what are the odds that they will form themselves into a regular geometric solid where every one is situated exactly like every other? Happens all the time, they are called crystals. No intelligence required.

The intelligence is in the laws of nature which predestined those things. It’s not an accident that life and intelligence is programmed into the fabric of existence.

You are only partly correct - normal for us humans, btw.

The fine tuned laws and properties of our universe allow for the creation of life and for intelligent life - however these do not evolve by chance.

For example, the precisely fine tuned rate for the expansion of our universe allowed for stars including supernovae to exist - and for supernovae to produce the elements needed for the creation of life.

Also the properties of these elements and complex compounds/molecules of these elements allow them to be arranged as informational rather than simply statistical molecules - for example: informational molecules (which also require translation and messenger molecules (e.g. messenger RNA).

However, information does not occur in molecules by chance - entropy works in the opposite direction - hence the difference between dead molecules and living molecules - at death information decays or leaves so that the functions of life cannot proceed.

For life to come into existence, informational molecules not only need to be created, along with translator molecules - but they need to be in the same place at the same time!

Btw - crystals are repetitive while informational molecules are variant.

The difficulty in creating life (which human creators cannot do) is illustrated in the environments needed to synthesize all of the 20 amino acids required for life:

Some amino acids prefer hot, others prefer cold for synthesis. Some prefer acid, others neutral or alkaline. Some prefer wet, others prefer dry - some even require condensing agents. You cannot have hot & cold, acid and alkaline, wet and dry in the same place at the same time. Unless, of course, an intelligent chemist is involved - of superior intelligence to us humans.

Would you all like me to post details as to the results of synthesis experiments like those of Miller - Urey, etc.? Suffice it to say for now that most are unaware that the primary chemical reaction product is formic acid, not amino acids. And that most amino acids and other molecules produced (the chemical reaction product proportions) are mostly useless (or worse) to life.

And, finally, chance synthesis of polypeptides from these amino acids and then further to proteins are always statistical, not informational. [chance formation of even statistical proteins has an incredibly low probability given favorable primordial soups.]

I should add the need for exact 3-d fit of enzymes and receptors for the life processes to proceed.

I think you are confusing life that began 4 billion years ago with the life we see today. The first life may have been as simple as a molecule that was able to grow and divide, a self-replicating molecule like that would have become subject to Natural Selection. No intelligence required.

The first life may have been a clay:
Any self-replicating mechanism which does not make a perfect copy (mutation) will experience genetic variation and will create variants of itself. These variants will be subject to natural selection, since some will be better at surviving in their current environment than others and will out-breed them.

No, I am not. But specifically what forms of life do you have evidence existed billions of years ago on earth? And what forms of life do chemical evolutionists in their origin of life synthesis experiments favor - and with what environment? Please be specific.

No form of life can exist without informational molecules which require an intelligent chemist to produce.

Please note that earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which requires 3 things:

1. A significant atmosphere of carbon dioxide (CO2) - Britannica notes the carbonate deposits have a carbon content of over 64 million petagrams - roughly the same as in the atmosphere of Venus today.

2. Vast oceans - likely earth covered with water as stated in Genesis 1:2. The oceans dissolve CO2 (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is).

3. But to form carbonates, these waters would not only require carbonate ions (CO3) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3) but also 'metal' ions of Calcium (Ca), Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K).

So what molecules do you propose could synthesize in that environment when the evidence in chemistry is that the ions of Ca, Na and K would combine with any molecules (not just carbonate ions) in the water which would make them useless to life.

Also note that the most abundant element in earth's crust is Oxygen. Most chemical evolutionists claim Oxygen was not present in early earth's atmosphere. So, then, how did earth's crustal minerals become oxidized without Oxygen?

Many chemical evolutionists postulate both water and UV (ultraviolet radiation) in origin of life synthesis experiments. They ignore a basic fact in chemistry: UV radiation causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O): 2 H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2 (but via extremely reactive elemental Oxygen = O). If water was present and UV radiation was present, free Oxygen would also be present. Oxygen destroys most starter molecules needed for a chemical pathway to life.

So, minerals were oxidized but molecules required for life were not oxidized? How do you propose that happened if not by an intelligent chemist?

No form of life can exist without informational molecules which require an intelligent chemist to produce.

I didn't know "an intelligent chemist" can produce life!

 

[Meriweather]

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

 

[Indeependent]

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

Put an atheist on Gilligan's Island for 1 month and they'll believe in God.

 

[james bond]

So how did Satan create the quantum particle called singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density? Which Gospel was that again? I'd hate to think you were just making this stuff up. (You do know that matter can be converted to energy, right?)

He whispered it into atheist scientist's Stephen Hawking's brain. No one but Satan's follower would call it "Gospel."

One of the closest Bible verses is:
"Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

OK, now I know you're just making stuff up. Satan whispered to Hawking? How do you know it wasn't God?

Your Bible verse is way off in left field. Face it, quantum mechanics was unknown to the ancients. They didn't even know why it rained.

It's hypothesis. Satan tempts. God warns. That is how these beings interact with us. No one doubts Hawking was an atheist, so he was biased, i.e. ready to listen to Satan. He's going to ignore any warnings from God.

Before his death, Hawking was really studying multiverses as he had a thesis that we can find evidence for a multiverse if we examine the light from the universe's past. This would be Satan influencing his brain putting thoughts in it.

What I know now is that he didn't find it.

The other video I posted about a 2011 paper challenging the many worlds theory and showing that Shrodinger's cat could not exist as both dead and alive proved it.

It's not widely publicized, but Hawking himself said he didn't believe in a multiverse sometime before he died.

Many scientists don't like the idea, including Hawking, who said in an interview last year: "I have never been a fan of the multiverse."

After death, Hawking cuts 'multiverse' theory down to size

With a science paper published after his death, Stephen Hawking has revived debate on a deeply divisive question for cosmologists: Is our Universe just one of many in an infinite, ever-expanding "multiverse"?

phys.org

 

[alang1216]

Well we don’t know this is the first occurrence, right?

Do you really believe the organic micro machines of living organisms are happenstance? Have you seen the animations of the assembly line like machinations of these organic machines?

You think intelligence developed on earth before man? Zero evidence for that I'd say.

Yes I do. Simple natural laws can give rise to amazing things. Picture trillions of mindless molecules floating in water, what are the odds that they will form themselves into a regular geometric solid where every one is situated exactly like every other? Happens all the time, they are called crystals. No intelligence required.

The intelligence is in the laws of nature which predestined those things. It’s not an accident that life and intelligence is programmed into the fabric of existence.

You are only partly correct - normal for us humans, btw.

The fine tuned laws and properties of our universe allow for the creation of life and for intelligent life - however these do not evolve by chance.

For example, the precisely fine tuned rate for the expansion of our universe allowed for stars including supernovae to exist - and for supernovae to produce the elements needed for the creation of life.

Also the properties of these elements and complex compounds/molecules of these elements allow them to be arranged as informational rather than simply statistical molecules - for example: informational molecules (which also require translation and messenger molecules (e.g. messenger RNA).

However, information does not occur in molecules by chance - entropy works in the opposite direction - hence the difference between dead molecules and living molecules - at death information decays or leaves so that the functions of life cannot proceed.

For life to come into existence, informational molecules not only need to be created, along with translator molecules - but they need to be in the same place at the same time!

Btw - crystals are repetitive while informational molecules are variant.

The difficulty in creating life (which human creators cannot do) is illustrated in the environments needed to synthesize all of the 20 amino acids required for life:

Some amino acids prefer hot, others prefer cold for synthesis. Some prefer acid, others neutral or alkaline. Some prefer wet, others prefer dry - some even require condensing agents. You cannot have hot & cold, acid and alkaline, wet and dry in the same place at the same time. Unless, of course, an intelligent chemist is involved - of superior intelligence to us humans.

Would you all like me to post details as to the results of synthesis experiments like those of Miller - Urey, etc.? Suffice it to say for now that most are unaware that the primary chemical reaction product is formic acid, not amino acids. And that most amino acids and other molecules produced (the chemical reaction product proportions) are mostly useless (or worse) to life.

And, finally, chance synthesis of polypeptides from these amino acids and then further to proteins are always statistical, not informational. [chance formation of even statistical proteins has an incredibly low probability given favorable primordial soups.]

I should add the need for exact 3-d fit of enzymes and receptors for the life processes to proceed.

I think you are confusing life that began 4 billion years ago with the life we see today. The first life may have been as simple as a molecule that was able to grow and divide, a self-replicating molecule like that would have become subject to Natural Selection. No intelligence required.

The first life may have been a clay:
Any self-replicating mechanism which does not make a perfect copy (mutation) will experience genetic variation and will create variants of itself. These variants will be subject to natural selection, since some will be better at surviving in their current environment than others and will out-breed them.

No, I am not. But specifically what forms of life do you have evidence existed billions of years ago on earth? And what forms of life do chemical evolutionists in their origin of life synthesis experiments favor - and with what environment? Please be specific.

No form of life can exist without informational molecules which require an intelligent chemist to produce.

Please note that earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which requires 3 things:

1. A significant atmosphere of carbon dioxide (CO2) - Britannica notes the carbonate deposits have a carbon content of over 64 million petagrams - roughly the same as in the atmosphere of Venus today.

2. Vast oceans - likely earth covered with water as stated in Genesis 1:2. The oceans dissolve CO2 (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is).

3. But to form carbonates, these waters would not only require carbonate ions (CO3) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3) but also 'metal' ions of Calcium (Ca), Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K).

So what molecules do you propose could synthesize in that environment when the evidence in chemistry is that the ions of Ca, Na and K would combine with any molecules (not just carbonate ions) in the water which would make them useless to life.

Also note that the most abundant element in earth's crust is Oxygen. Most chemical evolutionists claim Oxygen was not present in early earth's atmosphere. So, then, how did earth's crustal minerals become oxidized without Oxygen?

Many chemical evolutionists postulate both water and UV (ultraviolet radiation) in origin of life synthesis experiments. They ignore a basic fact in chemistry: UV radiation causes photolysis/photodissociation of water (H2O): 2 H2O + UV radiation yields 2H2 + O2 (but via extremely reactive elemental Oxygen = O). If water was present and UV radiation was present, free Oxygen would also be present. Oxygen destroys most starter molecules needed for a chemical pathway to life.

So, minerals were oxidized but molecules required for life were not oxidized? How do you propose that happened if not by an intelligent chemist?

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

 

[Andylusion]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

You have the right to be wrong. The short answer is: Yes. We're born, we live, and we die, and then comes the judgement before G-d almighty, where the good is rewards, and the evil is punished.

 

[Meriweather]

Put an atheist on Gilligan's Island for 1 month and they'll believe in God.

Not any of the atheists I know.

 

[Indeependent]

Put an atheist on Gilligan's Island for 1 month and they'll believe in God.

Not any of the atheists I know.

That's because Science (at a loss when it comes to C19) is their god.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OK, can you be more specific as to which evidence you do not consider evidence?

Already answered ^^

If you say, "everything is evidence", then you don't actually have any evidence at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is the definition of spirit scientifically?

There isn't any. Its a madeup concept. An abstract construct of the human mind.