Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

If you see the big bang as an effect, then your silly god has physical effects, and that puts it well within the purview of scientific inquiry.  The unfalsifiability of the "supernatural" is what people retreat to..but not what people believe.  We're absolute garbage at coming up with genuinely unfalsifiable propositions.  Probably has something to do with being a meat mind in a material world.  All of our referents are equally material...and so too, do we imagine god to be, even if we bullshit people for pages and pages only to shoot ourselves in the foot with a single sentence.

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

---

Louis Pasteurs idea's only applied to spontaneous generation not abiogenesis .

 
It wasn't Pasteur's idea.  He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments.  The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it.  So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.

[Amarok]

It wasn't Pasteur's idea.  He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments.  The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it.  So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.

Nope it's a excellent collection of theories that's being studied and you can assert it's wishful thinking all you like . And in fact biogenesis in no way proves life only comes from life it only proves life in it's current state does it's funny that it's own assertion is unprovable as to the origins of the first life .

---

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

So no real answer then

---

They don't need to.  We use science to study the natural world.

I've done peer-reviewed work in the past to include through self-study, to group projects, to doing peer review.  Never did I feel like there was some inherent obligation that I must include an explanation about God.  When you say "physics" you instantly default to the natural world, so you're going to talk about natural relationships.  What scientific study does do is evaluate relationships between two or more variables.  It doesn't attempt to make claims about anything supernatural, because you can't create parameters for such since they don't necessarily adhere to natural laws, which is why you get the "super" before "natural."  I'm certainly not debating whether or not there are a lot of cosmologists who are atheist and believe there was a big bang, but that is their choice.  We can't observe a "big bang" from the past, so it's based on conjecture.  Conjecture doesn't mean something is false, but we can't conclusively state it as being such without further knowledge.  When you start looking at the origins of anything, it's extremely difficult, because if we can't physically observe something, we are forming a conclusion based on insufficient knowledge.  I don't even have a problem with the "big bang" as a possibility, but I would see it as an effect rather than an initial cause.

So you have no answers then and lots of magic done it 

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It wasn't Pasteur's idea.  He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments.  The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it.  So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.

Nope it's a excellent  collection of theories that's being studied and you can assert it's wishful thinking all you like . And in fact biogenesis in no way proves life only comes from life it only proves life in it's current state does it's funny that it's own assertion is unprovable as to the origins of the first life .

---

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

So no real answer then

---

They don't need to.  We use science to study the natural world.

I've done peer-reviewed work in the past to include through self-study, to group projects, to doing peer review.  Never did I feel like there was some inherent obligation that I must include an explanation about God.  When you say "physics" you instantly default to the natural world, so you're going to talk about natural relationships.  What scientific study does do is evaluate relationships between two or more variables.  It doesn't attempt to make claims about anything supernatural, because you can't create parameters for such since they don't necessarily adhere to natural laws, which is why you get the "super" before "natural."  I'm certainly not debating whether or not there are a lot of cosmologists who are atheist and believe there was a big bang, but that is their choice.  We can't observe a "big bang" from the past, so it's based on conjecture.  Conjecture doesn't mean something is false, but we can't conclusively state it as being such without further knowledge.  When you start looking at the origins of anything, it's extremely difficult, because if we can't physically observe something, we are forming a conclusion based on insufficient knowledge.  I don't even have a problem with the "big bang" as a possibility, but I would see it as an effect rather than an initial cause.

So you have no answers then and lots of magic done it 

-Sorry, I'll stick with what science has shown us.  You can believe whatever you like.  No abiogenesis.  Fiction created by fiction enthusiasts, then brainwashing people to buy into the nonsense.

-Answer to what?  I provided a response and you just quoted it.  What more do you want?  But I can tell you what I would love to see.  A video of something inorganic forming something organic.  How about nothing exploding into something?  If it's scientific, I'm sure you should have no problem providing a demonstration of it happening.  

[Amarok]

Nope it's a excellent  collection of theories that's being studied and you can assert it's wishful thinking all you like . And in fact biogenesis in no way proves life only comes from life it only proves life in it's current state does it's funny that it's own assertion is unprovable as to the origins of the first life .

---

So no real answer then

---

So you have no answers then and lots of magic done it 

-Sorry, I'll stick with what science has shown us.  You can believe whatever you like.  No abiogenesis.  Fiction created by fiction enthusiasts, then brainwashing people to buy into the nonsense.

-Answer to what?  I provided a response and you just quoted it.  What more do you want?  But I can tell you what I would love to see.  A video of something inorganic forming something organic.  How about nothing exploding into something?  If it's scientific, I'm sure you should have no problem providing a demonstration of it happening.  

Accept science has not shown this . It's got nothing to do with belief . Nope it's science based on observation of science studied by scientists . And the rest is conspiracy speak .

No one cares what you want to see . The evidence for abiogenesis or big bang is there and accepted by scientific community .

Oh and can you provide a video of life always existing or life only ever coming from life forever and ever. No not just life replicating I mean life originating from life or life itself lacking an origin . After all if it's science surely you can provide a demonstration   or are a man of double standards ?

And no ones claiming nothing exploded (considering the big bang wasn't an explosion ) into something so your demands is unreasonable. But even if they were your proof it couldn't happen is ?No not the current state of the universe does not permit it or this or that this thing or that thing doesn't occur that way . I mean universally there is no way it could ever occur . What would be awesome is to see something supernatural create something and then provide any reason to believe that it's supernatural   . Oh right god is beyond science yada yada .

---

Oh his statement makes no sense as all as technically all organic compounds are formed of inorganic compounds oh and organic does not mean alive , And stranger still is god organic and did he use the organic to create the organic ?

[Deesse23]

How about nothing exploding into something?

Idiot gets explained what the big bang was 1 million times. Idiot tries to misrepresent big bang for 1million-1 times (because he still has nothing to support his own claim of "its a kind of magic"). Note the effort of the triple-troll however by misrepresenting it three ways in this simple statement.

#1 Nothing didnt explode into something but into nothing
#2 Nothing didnt explode into nothing but singularity did
#3 Singularity didnt explode but expand


3 lies in such a short amount of time, thats quite someting...........he does on a regular basis on AF.

[Amarok]

Yeah I see that very odd .

---

How about nothing exploding into something?

Idiot gets explained what the big bang was 1 million times. Idiot tries to misrepresent big bang for 1million-1 times (because he still has nothing to support his own claim of "its a kind of magic"). Note the effort of the triple-troll however by misrepresenting it three ways in this simple statement.

#1 Nothing didnt explode into something but into nothing
#2 Nothing didnt explode into nothing but singularity did
#3 Singularity didnt explode but expand


3 lies in such a short amount of time, thats quite someting...........he does on a regular basis on AF.

Not to mention the fact that it's not even widely believed to be the beginning of the universe as if we must assume the universe has or requires a beginning .

[downbeatplumb]

-Sorry, I'll stick with what science has shown us.

If you "stick with what science has shown us" then you have to reject the idea of a god then. There is zero scientific evidence for one of those.

  You can believe whatever you like.  No abiogenesis.  Fiction created by fiction enthusiasts, then brainwashing people to buy into the nonsense.

We know life can from matter somehow, abiogenesis is the only way that that could have happened, There are reasonable isdeas as to how that could have happened.
Now the answer the religious folks posit is that "god did it" but that is not an answer because they never go on to say how god did it. they never provide evidence to support the assertion they just say it was god and leave it at that.

Or to put it another way. They try to replace a good explanation with nothing at all. 

-Answer to what?  I provided a response and you just quoted it.  What more do you want?  But I can tell you what I would love to see.  A video of something inorganic forming something organic.  How about nothing exploding into something?  If it's scientific, I'm sure you should have no problem providing a demonstration of it happening.  

So you demand "evidence" from us while saying that your position does not need any just coz. Do you irony much?[/quote]

[Jehanne]

If you see the big bang as an effect, then your silly god has physical effects, and that puts it well within the purview of scientific inquiry.  The unfalsifiability of the "supernatural" is what people retreat to..but not what people believe.  We're absolute garbage at coming up with genuinely unfalsifiable propositions.  Probably has something to do with being a meat mind in a material world.  All of our referents are equally material...and so too, do we imagine god to be, even if we bullshit people for pages and pages only to shoot ourselves in the foot with a single sentence.

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

---

Louis Pasteurs idea's only applied to spontaneous generation not abiogenesis .

 
It wasn't Pasteur's idea.  He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments.  The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it.  So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.

The Universe does not need a cause any more than the spontaneous decay of a C14 atom needs a cause. Ergo, our physical reality is indudated with events for which there is no cause; this is why smoke detectors work for 10 or more years before having to be replaced.

[Amarok]

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

---

 
It wasn't Pasteur's idea.  He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments.  The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it.  So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.

The Universe does not need a cause any more than the spontaneous decay of a C14 atom needs a cause.  Ergo, our physical reality is indudated with events for which there is no cause; this is why smoke detectors work for 10 or more years before having to be replaced.

Yup and there is simply the fact their is no reason to think everything needed a cause

[polymath257]

It appears you didn't - my apologies.

Please explain how the conservation of mass is a problem for abiogenesis.

Boru

Directly it doesn't, but I don't know that I implied that.  If it was, then it would've been a typing error. I would have to look at the post again.  I thought I was applying it in regard to the "big bang" though.  Abiogenesis would be more in conflict with biogenesis.

Funny, the conservation laws are upheld in General Relativity, on which the Big Bang scenario is based. On the other hand, the *total* amount of energy in the universe (matter, gravitational, etc) appears to be *zero*, which means 'something from nothing' isn't a violation.

And this is the difficulty with you asking for a pop rock. that *would* be a violation of the conservation laws except under the very specific conditions that allow the cancellation required for zero energy.