Abiogenesis is impossible

[LostLocke]

Define 'information', and then defend it's use in that statement. - mind is greater than matter. therefore matter can't originate mind.

It would in reality be way more accurate if the word 'information' was completely scrapped when having a discussion like this.

The word 'information' does not work in this context like you want it to from other uses.

I'll give you a simple example, you'll have to grasp what I mean on your own though:
1- My HDD contains the information needed to run my computer.
2- Human DNA does not contain the 'information' to build a human.

Or another example:
I hold out a glass in my hand. I let go of the glass. The glass falls, hits the ground and breaks.
Where is the 'information' that this should happen? Is it in the glass? Is it in the ground? Is it inside gravity itself? Does the glass 'know' to break when it hits the ground, or is it the ground that 'knows' to break the glass?

[Sword of Christ]

So you're not a creationist?

God created the universe itself if that counts as creationism? I'd suggest something had to create it if it didn't always exist.

[popeyespappy]

Something may have, and if you want to call that process God that's fine with me. But the chances that it was Yahweh who was responsible for the process are zero.

[downbeatplumb]

So you're not a creationist?

God created the universe itself if that counts as creationism?

Assertion made with no facts to back it.

I'd suggest something had to create it if it didn't always exist.

But there is no evidence that the causal agent of the universe is anything other than a natural physical process.

Your argument is just the god of the gaps.

[Sword of Christ]

Assertion made with no facts to back it.

The same number of facts atheism/materialism has just better arguments and reason.

But there is no evidence that the causal agent of the universe is anything other than a natural physical process.

There's no evidence that the universe was an accident of a non-intelligent process without a deliberate purpose either. So you have one kind of belief and a different kind of belief both of which fit into our knowledge of the universe/science just fine. I'd say God is the better fit but you don't have to agree, you just have to know the score.

Your argument is just the god of the gaps.

I don't see how science is meant to discover the meaning/purpose of life and reason for existence. It just explains how things work that's all so it's a different subject. If it's a different subject then it isn't filling any scientific gaps.

[Esquilax]

The same number of facts atheism/materialism has just better arguments and reason.

It must be easier to just keep asserting that than it is to actually demonstrate it, eh?

There's no evidence that the universe was an accident of a non-intelligent process without a deliberate purpose either.

Oh? There's no cosmic background radiation, or redshift, or universal expansion or all that other evidence for the big bang?

Or are you just talking about the non-claim that the big bang doesn't exhibit any sign of having a god behind it? Because that's not a claim that requires evidence; it's an admission that beyond the planck time we don't know what happened yet. You are the only one making a claim here.

So you have one kind of belief and a different kind of belief both of which fit into our knowledge of the universe/science just fine. I'd say God is the better fit but you don't have to agree, you just have to know the score.

"Ooh, it's all just opinion!"

No, it's actually not. One side has actual evidence, and is willing to stop at the edge of our knowledge pending further investigation. Yours is claiming that magic was involved despite having no evidence of that at all, and no interest in investigating to find it before making those claims.

I don't see how science is meant to discover the meaning/purpose of life and reason for existence.

Well, you heard the man:

A god of the gaps argument supported by the classic argument from ignorance.

[downbeatplumb]

Assertion made with no facts to back it.

The same number of facts atheism/materialism has just better arguments and reason.

Once all evidence has been gathered and evaluated the answer to no problem has ever been magic man done it.

But there is no evidence that the causal agent of the universe is anything other than a natural physical process.

There's no evidence that the universe was an accident of a non-intelligent process without a deliberate purpose either.

However it is the most likely one as history has taught us.
All the things that were previously attributed to god have proven to not be.

So you have one kind of belief and a different kind of belief both of which fit into our knowledge of the universe/science just fine. I'd say God is the better fit but you don't have to agree, you just have to know the score.

My thought on how the universe came to be is that I don't know at the moment.

To live your life on the basis of it being some impossible super creature that watches you masturbate and hates the gays is
just too preposterous.

If find the idea of your god to be silly.

Your argument is just the god of the gaps.

I don't see how science is meant to discover the meaning/purpose of life and reason for existence. It just explains how things work that's all so it's a different subject. If it's a different subject then it isn't filling any scientific gaps.

So you are trying to put arbitrary limits on science to allow you to keep believing in your fantasy.

[Sword of Christ]

It must be easier to just keep asserting that than it is to actually demonstrate it, eh?

You can try to demonstrate atheism if you like. You have nothing physically there to demonstrate of course, same applies to God as he isn't physical. So it's a question of belief either way you just have to go with the best arguments and most likely answers to the big questions. God is of course the best one, holds up very well. Though if we knew God existed as a certain fact there would be no need for faith of course.

Oh? There's no cosmic background radiation, or redshift, or universal expansion or all that other evidence for the big bang?

The Big Bang happened that was the point of creation of our particular level of physical existence, deliberate creation by the almighty Lord in the fully Biblical sense. As good a belief today as it was 3000 years ago, though we now know more about the specifics of the way God set things up.

Or are you just talking about the non-claim that the big bang doesn't exhibit any sign of having a god behind it?

The Big Bang was more finely arranged to produce a life generating and sustaining universe than a NASA rocket flight to the moon that suggests meticulous planning and design to me. You may as well try to create a Boeing 747 by setting off an explosion in a junkyard.

Because that's not a claim that requires evidence; it's an admission that beyond the planck time we don't know what happened yet. You are the only one making a claim here.

You're claiming there is no reason to believe that the creation of the universe was a deliberate/purpose intended event and I'm giving the reasoning why I and a few billion others think you're wrong. One kind of claim versus the other, someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

"Ooh, it's all just opinion!"

You can a reasoned opinion based on facts and evidence, reason and whatever. There's plenty of good reasons to believe in God.

No, it's actually not. One side has actual evidence

All the scientific evidence we currently have fits into the context of a purpose made universe very well indeed, I don't see any reason why science has to be in conflict with God/faith.

, and is willing to stop at the edge of our knowledge pending further investigation.

I have no objection to the scientific method that's the way it should be. God is beyond what science can study so it isn't a problem/conflict.

Yours is claiming that magic was involved despite having no evidence of that at all, and no interest in investigating to find it before making those claims.

If God didn't exist then it would be more magical if anything. Having things that can just appear out of nothing and finely arrange themselves into order and function without a purpose or cause, without a context or reason.

A god of the gaps argument supported by the classic argument from ignorance.

If you're not using God to explain anything science can potentially explain then there isn't a problem.

[Esquilax]

You can try to demonstrate atheism if you like.

Okay, sure!

You believe there's a god, right? Do I believe you when you say there is? No, I don't.

Atheism demonstrated.

You have nothing physically there to demonstrate of course, same applies to God as he isn't physical.

That must be very convenient for you.

So how do you know he exists at all? You have literally one way to interact with reality at all, and that's through your sensory apparatus.

So it's a question of belief either way you just have to go with the best arguments and most likely answers to the big questions. God is of course the best one, holds up very well. Though if we knew God existed as a certain fact there would be no need for faith of course.

You keep saying god is the best answer to the big questions, but god isn't actually an answer at all; it tells us nothing about the mechanism behind anything, our knowledge is not enhanced on any point, and an answer that you can't demonstrate and need faith to believe isn't a true answer by any stretch.

The Big Bang happened that was the point of creation of our particular level of physical existence, deliberate creation by the almighty Lord in the fully Biblical sense. As good a belief today as it was 3000 years ago, though we now know more about the specifics of the way God set things up.

Nah, the big bang was how Odin created the world. See? I can retrofit religious beliefs into known facts too.

The Big Bang was more finely arranged to produce a life generating and sustaining universe than a NASA rocket flight to the moon that suggests meticulous planning and design to me. You may as well try to create a Boeing 747 by setting off an explosion in a junkyard.

That's really interesting, considering science hasn't given a concrete statement on the particulars of the big bang, nor what occurred before it. The general consensus is that we're unable to do so at the current time, so... maybe you should go and publish these bare assertions you've made, since you clearly know more than the people who've actually studied this.

You're claiming there is no reason to believe that the creation of the universe was a deliberate/purpose intended event and I'm giving the reasoning why I and a few billion others think you're wrong. One kind of claim versus the other, someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

Actually, the claim I'm making is that I don't know how the universe began, but that I find your "evidence" for your claims insufficient.

My claim is this: "I don't believe you." The moment you actually present some good evidence, and not a series of fiat assertions, I'll believe you. That's the way rationality works.

You can a reasoned opinion based on facts and evidence, reason and whatever. There's plenty of good reasons to believe in God.

Interesting how you never present any.

All the scientific evidence we currently have fits into the context of a purpose made universe very well indeed.

No, it doesn't. At least, not without the desperate scrabble you religious folks to to bend over backwards to twist science to fit your religious dogma.

[Sword of Christ]

You believe there's a god, right? Do I believe you when you say there is? No, I don't.

If you don't have an alternative belief in Gods place you don't really have a reason to disagree with anyone. Whatever belief you have in place of God is not something you can prove so it may as well be a faith that is "not based on evidence". You have various arguments and reasons to support the atheist view but that's the same thing as a belief in God it still isn't you can demonstrate.

Atheism demonstrated.

A belief in God can be demonstrated as well but it's not scientific it's what you believe.

That must be very convenient for you.

You may as well say it's convenient that you can't have "proof and evidence of atheism". You can't have one and you can't have the other.

So how do you know he exists at all?

Well reasoned arguments, subjective experience, history, revelation and that kind of thing. You do have to use apply some level of faith of course seeing as you can't know. You can't know either so it's the same difference.

You have literally one way to interact with reality at all, and that's through your sensory apparatus.

You can't see/detect God with sensory apparatus, that's what the Holy Spirit is for.

it tells us nothing about the mechanism behind anything

You're right it doesn't. Science covers all that.

our knowledge is not enhanced on any point, and an answer that you can't demonstrate and need faith to believe isn't a true answer by any stretch.

It doesn't enhance your scientific knowledge but no-ones saying it does. It can give you a greater appreciation for natural world as Gods creation and so feed your interest in science and discovery. At least that's how science began.

Nah, the big bang was how Odin created the world.

He would be like a demiurge if he did, that would be a being who formed the universe from already pre-existing material. The demiurge would be reasonable for the actual existence of what he works with and something else will have created the demiurge. This is something the Gnostics and Mormons believe in though I'm happy with the orthodox Christian view of God being the creator of the physical universe or universes if there is more than one.

See? I can retrofit religious beliefs into known facts too.

What you retrofitted still kind of works though, there were/are Christians who believe in a demiurge so that's viable if not very orthodox.

That's really interesting, considering science hasn't given a concrete statement on the particulars of the big bang, nor what occurred before it. The general consensus is that we're unable to do so at the current time, so... maybe you should go and publish these bare assertions you've made, since you clearly know more than the people who've actually studied this.

It just confirms that the universe as we know it didn't always exist and time as experience had a point of origin. There could be multiple universes and all kind of things going on that we could potentially understand but regardless of the extent of existence it will still need a context, some kind of eternal foundation to rest in. We can only study what physically exists and can be observed and detected so God falls beyond all this however you try to cut it.

Actually, the claim I'm making is that I don't know how the universe began

Neither do I but I do believe wasn't accidental but has the purpose to produce life and civilization, given the precise and complex nature of what into setting all this up. I also believe that God is the designer and creator all in one there's no point making it more complicated than it needs to be. One God and one creation of God.

, but that I find your "evidence" for your claims insufficient.

You can't have any scientific evidence of the existence God so that's a moot point. You have to use other kinds of evidence and faith.

My claim is this: "I don't believe you." The moment you actually present some good evidence

I could present you with the Bible but you wouldn't like it, and it's not like you're interested in an inner experience of God either. It depends what you want to accept as evidence when you can't ever have scientific evidence for the existence of something. But seeing as you can't ever have any scientific evidence of God by the definition of what he would be you don't have to worry about a conflict between faith and science. You can have both.

, and not a series of fiat assertions, I'll believe you. That's the way rationality works.

You have the premise of Gods existence as a reality and then the reasons as to why the premise is true and the counter argument/claim is not true. So that's the best you can do with it seeing as science has nothing to say on this issue. Science is limited to what we can see, detect and observe and it gives you the function and operation of natural physical processes. That's all it will ever be able to do so God is beyond it's scope.

Interesting how you never present any.

I do but you keep saying "No because science" so that's what needs to be addressed before you can seriously consider the arguments in Gods favor.

No, it doesn't. At least, not without the desperate scrabble you religious folks to to bend over backwards to twist science to fit your religious dogma.

You don't have to twist anything if science is not in conflict with God to begin with.