Scientist Makes Organic Matter out of Inorganic Matter

[rjh4 is back]

yeah... i would say that the connection I make between a-biological organic chemistry and abiogenesis may be considered a leap of faith but I wouldn't put it in the same category as miracles esp. events written about in the Bible such as walking on water, the resurrection, and a guy getting gobbled up by a fish.

Fair enough.

there's a big difference between believing events contradictory to physics and medicine happened 2,000 years ago when knowledge and communication was scarce and believing abiogenesis is consistent with complex organic molecules existing abiologically.

Not if one starts from a position that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. If you start with a position that God exists, isn't it reasonable to conclude that He could easily do things that are contrary to how we view physics and medicine today?

All the philosophies or methods I adhere to are productive, being of great value to our technological advance.

Me too.

[b]The only priori I abide by is one should not believe in something for which there is insufficient or no evidence:

Sounds good. But I'm not sure that it really is the case. For example, you say you believe in metaphysical naturalism. According to wiki, this "is a world view and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences". Then for you to believe in this, there must be some evidence that there is "nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences" because if there is no such evidence or sufficient evidence of this, you should not believe in it according to your own standard.

Furthermore, how do you evaluate any evidence using this priori? Evidence isn't something that has only one possible explanation. For most evidence there are different possible explanations that are contradictory. How does your priori help you decide about where the evidence leads? Metaphysical naturalism would certainly aid in doing this, but then that would be a priori and you deny that it is that for you.

What's your priori?

I already told you.

I'm glad there are some people that don't limit themselves by "God did it" and continue to investigate possibilities that are relevant to facts (science).

Me too. Just because I believe God exists and that He created the universe doesn't mean that I don't have an interest in science, how things work, and how to apply the knowledge that we have.

You believe that the Bible is the word of God? Why? What evidence do you have that a deity is responsible for the Bible?

There are many book written on the subject that are filled with such evidence. I would suggest that you read one if you haven't already. Of course, based on your priori, you must have already read all the books there are that give evidence for such things, otherwise you could not reasonably believe that God does not exist. I do not think there is any evidence that necessitates my position but I also think there is no evidence that necessitates a different position. (I think faith is required not matter what your worldview is.) I have no desire to argue with you about any specific bit of evidence so I will decline to provide more.

Actually, the Bible is inerrant and even contradictory: hardly the work of an all-loving, omnipotent deity. You'd think if a deity truly existed that he'd make sure the book that represents it was at least not contradictory.

I disagree. For every potential contradiction, there is a potential explanation. There are plenty of web sites on both sides that deal with these issues. Maybe where you see contradictions, you are understanding it incorrectly.