RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
October 22, 2013 at 12:24 pm
And you again ignore all my points SoC. Let's try again.
Okay, let's play that game (and that's what this is to you: a game). That block of spacetime was reality. Does it therefore need a 'realtor' to explain it?
No you tool. Calling it a construction (as in, a thing) does not presume it had a constrictor. As I demonstrated, by definition it couldn't.
You are an idiot. I mean it as a statement of fact, not an insult. Does reality necessitate a 'realtor'? Does your God necessitate a 'Godder'?
Yours is a (or at least being) child's mind.
Not quite. Life as we know it would mostly have had a harder time in different circumstances, no doubt about it. What you don't understand is that is because life molds itself (through straightforward population mechanics) to its environment, not the other way around.
Your claim was that abiogenesis was basically what Genesis said, which as I demonstrated is pure fiction you pulled out your ass.
Abiogenesis doesn't necessitate some perfect balance of laws. Another vapid assertion. You misunderstand what 'fine-tuning' is in physics.
And the problem is, is that we don't have any real support for supposing that "if" even being possibly the case. You can't say "If Y is true it explains (part of) X, therefore Y is true", which is what you're doing.
Natural processes don't 'come' from anywhere, they're just how things behave. There is no logic about why things ultimately behave as they do, it's a brute fact. And in ALL possible worlds this would be the case.
You just posted the same thing the text of mine you just quoted refuted. Can't stop that lying, can you?
Because (as I already said) something eternal (the universe on the B-theory of time) can't have been created by something temporally prior, and thus needs no creator. Further, there is no evidence within biology or chemistry of a telos (purpose) to life.
(October 22, 2013 at 11:57 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: What constructed it?
Okay, let's play that game (and that's what this is to you: a game). That block of spacetime was reality. Does it therefore need a 'realtor' to explain it?
No you tool. Calling it a construction (as in, a thing) does not presume it had a constrictor. As I demonstrated, by definition it couldn't.
Quote: Constructions require construction therefore a constructor.
You are an idiot. I mean it as a statement of fact, not an insult. Does reality necessitate a 'realtor'? Does your God necessitate a 'Godder'?
Yours is a (or at least being) child's mind.
Quote:So if the natural laws were tipped just a little either way life would no longer be possible? You would of course call this fine tuning.
Not quite. Life as we know it would mostly have had a harder time in different circumstances, no doubt about it. What you don't understand is that is because life molds itself (through straightforward population mechanics) to its environment, not the other way around.
Quote:It will be some kind of process we don't as of yet know about but will rely 100% perfectly balanced natural laws. We only know how organic molecules are formed in early Earth conditions atm not how this formed into complex self replicator molecules but that's something for science to potentially discover if it is something that can be discovered. It's possible the creation of life wasn't something that happened on Earth panspermia is a possibility. Quite a fair amount you can speculate over but nothing that would particularly disprove God as far as I can see.
Your claim was that abiogenesis was basically what Genesis said, which as I demonstrated is pure fiction you pulled out your ass.
Abiogenesis doesn't necessitate some perfect balance of laws. Another vapid assertion. You misunderstand what 'fine-tuning' is in physics.
Quote:If the universe as a whole was purposefully created with an intent then there will have been a intentional outcome as the Bible/Torah suggested. The precisely balanced nature of the natural laws and the eventual complex outcome we can observe do I would say strongly suggest something like. But you can believe differently if you like I can't stop you.
And the problem is, is that we don't have any real support for supposing that "if" even being possibly the case. You can't say "If Y is true it explains (part of) X, therefore Y is true", which is what you're doing.
Quote:Where did natural processes come from and aren't these statistics staggering for a coincidence?
Natural processes don't 'come' from anywhere, they're just how things behave. There is no logic about why things ultimately behave as they do, it's a brute fact. And in ALL possible worlds this would be the case.
Quote:If the universe was intentionally created for life by God then it is very much like the Biblical account.
You just posted the same thing the text of mine you just quoted refuted. Can't stop that lying, can you?
Quote:You haven't explained why any of this is evidence against God not evidence for what God intentionally did.
Because (as I already said) something eternal (the universe on the B-theory of time) can't have been created by something temporally prior, and thus needs no creator. Further, there is no evidence within biology or chemistry of a telos (purpose) to life.
