Science isn’t always the answer.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

imple English sentences use a capital I when speaking of yourself.

True, but obviously there is a difference between a typo and an utter lack of comprehension. Unless maybe you were being a dishonest weasel and misrepresenting my comments on purpose...? Pick your poison...

 

[forkup]

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

According to you, the Bible is a myth and God is a fairy tale. You, too, are without excuse. Evidence of our Creator is everywhere. You being a thinking creature with a, hopefully, functioning conscience should tell you that. But, instead, you're bent on spending your time trying feverishly to prove God doesn't exist. He's the one you'll need to answer to -- not me. I just call it like I see it.

Actually I think Holly like me, is trying to get you to provide evidence for the existence of God. Sorry that "it's all around" doesn't cut it. In fact, it's a fallacy to beg the question. I challenge you to give one just one argument that's not fallacious in nature.

 

[barn sour]

I will continue to believe God made Adam and Eve. Nothing in science contradicts that belief. And even somehow science proves man descended from an ape like creature, which has not provided compelling evidence for yet I will still believe that because those two things are NOT mutually exclusive to one another.

Even though we’ve explained in great detail why your belief is wrong? Luckily old dumb Americans like you die every day and are replaced with people who haven’t been brainwashed by ignorant parents who were brainwashed by ignorant parents

LOL my parents were not religious at all nor my Grandparents so much for your IGNORANCE.

So you don’t even have the excuse that your parents brainwashed you from early on? That makes you even more guilty of willful ignorance.

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

Retard the majority of the planet believes in God.

Oh, well, that means what?

Perhaps you should go on a gee-had and convert those who don't believe in your gods.

My god doesn't require that. Perhaps you have heard of the New Testament? More people in this world believe in a higher being then don't and 70 percent of the USA does as well.

Perhaps you have heard of a herd mentality? Lots of people believe Islam corrected your corrupted religion. Lots of people believe it so it must be true.

Thanks, lots.

One leads to killing, maiming, and unhappiness.
The other leads to a peace that passes all understanding.

People aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

The history of your religion sure depicts a lot of killing, maiming, and unhappiness. Those folks persecuted, maimed, and killed in the most inventive of ways by your religious compatriots may disagree about ''the peace that passes all understanding'' meme.

You're just naive and uneducated to blame mankind's failures and evil acts on Christians. Mainly because not all those who profess to be Christians are true believers. That has been the case from the beginning. That would be the same as my blaming you for every act committed against the black slaves or against the American indians. Pretty juvenile, actually.

I don’t hold mankind’s failures on acts of Christians, I hold Christians accountable for the failures of Christians. Aside from whatever chosen interpretation one wishes to take away from selected verses, we have only to look at the examples set by Christians in order to come to conclusions about Christianity. The fact is, the only external example of Christianity we have is Christians. If one is going to come to conclusions about such matters as forced conversions, enslavement of people, the revulsion of knowledge by the ruling class (the Dark Ages), the Christian world provides those examples.

You can't be that naive, Holly. Hitler called himself a Christian. He could call himself a woman in this day and age. That wouldn't make him a woman. This stuff is basic.

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian mob to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden

So, you think all those good people who are non-Christians haven't hurt other people, or done things they are ashamed of?
Even Christians hurt other people, and do things they are ashamed of.

Those who deny that are simply lying to themselves.

Seriously, Holly, you are very naive and lack discernment.

Case in point. Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. You should be able to tell that just by looking around today. People have done lots of things in the name of their religion, but that doesn't mean God is anywhere near them.

 

[barn sour]

imple English sentences use a capital I when speaking of yourself.

True, but obviously there is a difference between a typo and an utter lack of comprehension. Unless maybe you were being a dishonest weasel and misrepresenting my comments on purpose...? Pick your poison...

Oh, so your fault is better than my fault?

Seriously, I have no idea of what you're accusing me. I'm not a dishonest weasel. So that must mean I'm just plain stupid. Perhaps you should try to make yourself clear -- because so far you haven't.

 

[barn sour]

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

According to you, the Bible is a myth and God is a fairy tale. You, too, are without excuse. Evidence of our Creator is everywhere. You being a thinking creature with a, hopefully, functioning conscience should tell you that. But, instead, you're bent on spending your time trying feverishly to prove God doesn't exist. He's the one you'll need to answer to -- not me. I just call it like I see it.

Actually I think Holly like me, is trying to get you to provide evidence for the existence of God. Sorry that "it's all around" doesn't cut it. In fact, it's a fallacy to beg the question. I challenge you to give one just one argument that's not fallacious in nature.

The breath of life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

, so your fault is better than my fault?

A typo is better than total incomprehension or blatant dishonesty.

Yes, that is correct.

Anyhoo, you missed the best point. It's not your belief in god that deserves mockery, it's your childish dogma and terrible illogic.

 

[barn sour]

, so your fault is better than my fault?

A typo is better than total incomprehension or blatant dishonesty.

Yes, that is correct.

Anyhoo, you missed the best point. Its not your belief in god that deserves mockery, it's your childish dogma and terrible illogic.

Oh, well that makes total sense.

 

[the other mike]

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life.

We know a lot about it actually.

 

[Hollie]

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis is not a theory. Abiogenesis is a fact. Once there was no life, then there was. It is a fact as much as star formation is a fact. Once there was no star there, then there was.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is the best attempt at any given time to explain how abiogenesis happened.

 

[barn sour]

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life.

We know a lot about it actually.

Awesome, the universe, like mankind, was certainly fearfully and wonderfully made.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Awesome, the universe, like mankind, was certainly fearfully and wonderfully made.

Maybe so. Maybe it was all made by god(s). But even if true, that's not good reason to dispute the knowledge of how it works.

 

[barn sour]

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

 

[barn sour]

Awesome, the universe, like mankind, was certainly fearfully and wonderfully made.

Maybe so. Maybe it was all made by god(s). But even if true, that's not good reason to dispute the knowledge of how it works.

Did you see me disputing the knowledge of how it works? I saw a video that showed how it all could work, but nothing about what causes that spark of life.

Yes, I know. I'm just too stupid.

 

[barn sour]

Abiogenesis is not a theory. Abiogenesis is a fact. Once there was no life, then there was. It is a fact as much as star formation is a fact. Once there was no star there, then there was.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is the best attempt at any given time to explain how abiogenesis happened.

Best attempt is not fact. There was no LIFE in that video. That breath of life is something science cannot explain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did you see me disputing the knowledge of how it works?

Yes, i thought i saw you disputing the known age of the earth, for example. Did you not? You agree it is 4.54 billion years old? Yes? Ok, good, my bad?

"Spark of life"

Define this very specifically, and how we could test for it having occured. Else, its just another vapid slogan.

 

[forkup]

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

According to you, the Bible is a myth and God is a fairy tale. You, too, are without excuse. Evidence of our Creator is everywhere. You being a thinking creature with a, hopefully, functioning conscience should tell you that. But, instead, you're bent on spending your time trying feverishly to prove God doesn't exist. He's the one you'll need to answer to -- not me. I just call it like I see it.

Actually I think Holly like me, is trying to get you to provide evidence for the existence of God. Sorry that "it's all around" doesn't cut it. In fact, it's a fallacy to beg the question. I challenge you to give one just one argument that's not fallacious in nature.

The breath of life.

Again begging the question. I'm not asking for assertions. I'm asking for you to support those assertions.

 

[forkup]

Awesome, the universe, like mankind, was certainly fearfully and wonderfully made.

Maybe so. Maybe it was all made by god(s). But even if true, that's not good reason to dispute the knowledge of how it works.

Did you see me disputing the knowledge of how it works? I saw a video that showed how it all could work, but nothing about what causes that spark of life.

Yes, I know. I'm just too stupid.

That's an appeal to ignorance a different fallacy. Lack of proof for the start of life doesn't prove God exists. It proves that we don't know something. See the difference?

 

[ding]

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

According to you, the Bible is a myth and God is a fairy tale. You, too, are without excuse. Evidence of our Creator is everywhere. You being a thinking creature with a, hopefully, functioning conscience should tell you that. But, instead, you're bent on spending your time trying feverishly to prove God doesn't exist. He's the one you'll need to answer to -- not me. I just call it like I see it.

Actually I think Holly like me, is trying to get you to provide evidence for the existence of God. Sorry that "it's all around" doesn't cut it. In fact, it's a fallacy to beg the question. I challenge you to give one just one argument that's not fallacious in nature.

Ok, here you go.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Best attempt is not fact.

Nobody said it was. Abiogenesis is a fact. Our best, current attempt to explain how it works might be wrong.

I am not talking about the video. Once there was no life, then there was. Abiogenesis is a fact.



Also, your argument is very odd. You say your favored god made the whole universe and everything in it...so wouldn't any scientific explanation just then be an explanation of how god's universe works? Its absurd for you to say god made everything, then say that "science" (which explains anything we really know) , which explains so much, is inferior to explain the process of abiogenesis? This is incoherent, on your part.