Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Paul the Human]

If abiogenesis happened only once, as scientists have come to believe after centuries of failed experiments, then it was God's tool for creation. What I should really be arguing is that since abiogenesis cannot be replicated, this demonstrates that it happened only once because God allowed it to happen in order to create life.

progress guys!

Sort of. It sounds more like he found a way to justify his beliefs without denying that abiogenesis happened at least once. He is still claiming that science not only will not, but cannot duplicate it. Period.

[Samson]

He is also claiming that sense there is no evidence at this point and time, that the age old explanation is "Goddidit".....

[Minimalist]

progress guys!

Yeah....he's become a catholic!


Some progress.

[tavarish]

Believers don't view God as supernatural. God is nature.

...If God is nature, then there is no difference between God creating life, and abiogenesis (which is nature creating life). What is the problem you have with abiogenesis then?

You know what, Adrian? You've convinced me of something. You're right. If as a theistic evolutionist I can embrace evolution as God's tool, then I can also embrace abiogenesis as God's tool for originating life. I should not be disputing abiogenesis. If abiogenesis happened only once, as scientists have come to believe after centuries of failed experiments, then it was God's tool for creation. What I should really be arguing is that since abiogenesis cannot be replicated, this demonstrates that it happened only once because God allowed it to happen in order to create life.

I would have to do more research, and think about it some more. But what I'm saying is that I am now open to the possibility that abiogenesis may have occurred. And that's thanks to you.

I know the final result is not exactly what you intended, but no doubt you are a smart guy, and I'm not afraid to give someone credit if I feel they bring something new and challenging to the table. Believe me when I say that I consider all the comments that are posted.

Here's where your newfound revelation falls apart.

You made the point in previous posts that God has a nature - a nature in which he cannot act against.
If God is described by his nature, he cannot prescribe things that are against his nature, and thus cannot also BE nature, nor can he be omnipotent, if by definition he cannot act against his own prescribed nature.

If he is bound to a specific set of guidelines, what is your account for that? Do you understand that if someone is constrained to a set of rules of operations, they necessarily couldn't have authored them in the case that a key attribute of that entity is immutability?

An unchanging God couldn't have "made" rules at one point or had another nature.

[Purple Rabbit]

You made the point in previous posts that God has a nature - a nature in which he cannot act against.
If God is described by his nature, he cannot prescribe things that are against his nature, and thus cannot also BE nature, nor can he be omnipotent, if by definition he cannot act against his own prescribed nature.

If he is bound to a specific set of guidelines, what is your account for that? Do you understand that if someone is constrained to a set of rules of operations, they necessarily couldn't have authored them in the case that a key attribute of that entity is immutability?

An unchanging God couldn't have "made" rules at one point or had another nature.

Good point. And it makes clear that these traditional god attributes can have an incapacitating effect. Humans can improve on themselves, god can't. Humans can change their view on things, god can't. Humans can resent their actions, god can't. And as this infallibility is at the core of what defines us, how can the traditional god claim to have made us into his image, to know us, to be able to fathom human feelings? The traditional god is a contradiction in itself, despite all the theology fallible human beings can come up with.

[WingedFoe]

Believers don't view God as supernatural. God is nature.

...If God is nature, then there is no difference between God creating life, and abiogenesis (which is nature creating life). What is the problem you have with abiogenesis then?

You know what, Adrian? You've convinced me of something. You're right. If as a theistic evolutionist I can embrace evolution as God's tool, then I can also embrace abiogenesis as God's tool for originating life. I should not be disputing abiogenesis. If abiogenesis happened only once, as scientists have come to believe after centuries of failed experiments, then it was God's tool for creation. What I should really be arguing is that since abiogenesis cannot be replicated, this demonstrates that it happened only once because God allowed it to happen in order to create life.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Science is a process, not some book with all the answers laid out from the get-go. Wannabe aviators made failed attempts to fly for centuries before they finally did it in 1903. Doctors failed miserably to cure their patients, often spreading more disease and causing more harm than good until the acceptance of Germ Theory. Man stared into the cosmos and wondered for millennia what occupied the heavens, but it wasn't until the invention of the telescope (and many subsequent improvements on the technology) that we knew.

Molecular biology has made some amazing progress in the last century. The discovery of DNA, the advent of genetic engineering, and an extremely detailed understanding of cellular processes has been achieved. We know so much more about the cell than we did just 50 years ago, that it's laughable to discount current attempts to create artificial life by pointing at early failures. It's comparable to looking at all the wackos in history who strapped wooden wings to their arms in an attempt to fly, and saying "manned flight is impossible, just look at the thousands of failed attempts so far. These Wright Brothers should just give up, 'cause it's not gonna happen."

[AngelThMan]

...It sounds more like he found a way to justify his beliefs without denying that abiogenesis happened at least once. He is still claiming that science not only will not, but cannot duplicate it. Period.

...Science is a process, not some book with all the answers laid out from the get-go. Wannabe aviators made failed attempts to fly for centuries before they finally did it in 1903. Doctors failed miserably to cure their patients, often spreading more disease and causing more harm than good until the acceptance of Germ Theory. Man stared into the cosmos and wondered for millennia what occupied the heavens, but it wasn't until the invention of the telescope (and many subsequent improvements on the technology) that we knew.

Molecular biology has made some amazing progress in the last century. The discovery of DNA, the advent of genetic engineering, and an extremely detailed understanding of cellular processes has been achieved. We know so much more about the cell than we did just 50 years ago, that it's laughable to discount current attempts to create artificial life by pointing at early failures. It's comparable to looking at all the wackos in history who strapped wooden wings to their arms in an attempt to fly, and saying "manned flight is impossible, just look at the thousands of failed attempts so far. These Wright Brothers should just give up, 'cause it's not gonna happen."

The scientific community has accepted the fact that abiogenesis in its old form has been debunked. They have moved on to what they term the 'modern hypothesis of abiogenesis,' in which life emerged only once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The point is science is no longer trying to replicate abiogenesis in its old form. Craig Venter et al. are trying to create artificial life, which is different from abiogenesis, in which life emerged from inanimate matter.

[Paul the Human]

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

Disproving a theory and moving on to another is not 'failure'. It is the scientific process that ultimately leads to success.

[tavarish]

The scientific community has accepted the fact that abiogenesis in its old form has been debunked. They have moved on to what they term the 'modern hypothesis of abiogenesis,' in which life emerged only once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

This is the hypothesis that flies literally came from shit. How is this at all relevant? This theory was formed before scientists knew about cells and germs, much less the life development cycles of certain lifeforms.

The point is science is no longer trying to replicate abiogenesis in its old form. Craig Venter et al. are trying to create artificial life, which is different from abiogenesis, in which life emerged from inanimate matter.

Yes, that hypothesis was scrapped in favor of the explanation that was supported by the most evidence. That's how science works. I'm still failing to realize how this is at all relevant.

Abiogenesis happened AT LEAST once, to say it happened only once wouldn't be accurate.

[Caecilian]

The scientific community has accepted the fact that abiogenesis in its old form has been debunked. They have moved on to what they term the 'modern hypothesis of abiogenesis,' in which life emerged only once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The point is science is no longer trying to replicate abiogenesis in its old form. Craig Venter et al. are trying to create artificial life, which is different from abiogenesis, in which life emerged from inanimate matter.

Ffs- no one has believed in spontaneous generation for well over a century.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about origins of life research. Its a very exciting area- lots of interesting theories and experiments.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to find out something about it before you pontificate on the subject. As it stands, you're just making yourself look stupid.