Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Welsh cake]

During my change from Atheism to Christianity, I began to notice things that confused me and startled me, that I could not explain from an atheistic, materialistic, or scientific viewpoint. Believe me, I did try to do so.

I believe all religions are correct, to an extent. They all make the attempt at describing the same phenomena. As does Atheism, even, and science too.

Atheism is not an attempt at explaining phenomena; it makes no claims about reality, it is a rejection of theistic claims, pure and simple.

You never were an atheist, were you?

[Thor]

500 years is enough time.

Says who? Why should there be a time limit on scientific experiments? There are many theories out there that scientists may still be looking to prove a thousand years from now. Anti-matter, curved space and string theory are some of these things. Science has not been able to achieve Absolute Zero. Does this mean it's impossible?

Most experiments would be deemed failures after a fraction of that time.

A failed experiment doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Galileo concluded that objects of varying weights fall at the same speed. But I can "prove" that theory wrong by dropping a chicken feather and a ball bearing at the same time. The ball bearing will hit the floor way before the feather does. This experiment failed! But, of course, this experiment fails to take air resistance into account. Could be the same thing with abiogenesis. We just haven't yet figured out all the things that need to be considered.

But scientist, particularly atheist scientists, will continue to try to prove abiogenesis for a million years.

And they may never be able to prove it definitively. We have no way of knowing exactly the chemical makeup of the oceans three billion years ago. We may never be able to replicate the exact circumstances that led to the creation of life. And just because we can't does not mean that life was created by an invisible supernatural being.

Anything but consider the possibility that life was originated by God.

Okay... what experiment can science perform that would lead us to the conclusion that life originated with your deity? Yeah... nothing. So why would scientists waste their time messing around with something that is unprovable and not falsifiable? Should scientists consider the possibility that life originated with a magical troll?

Atheists are so quick to support, and even staunchly believe in, the hypothesis of abiogenesis, which is based on unfounded theories,

Lots of things are based on "unfounded theories". Gravitational theory, for example. Have you ever seen a gravitron? The key is that these theories are FALSIFIABLE. And the theory of abiogenesis has not been falsified, despite, as you put it, 500 years of experimentation.

and yet attack theists for believing in a deity who supposedly lacks evidence.

Supposedly?

[Watson]

As I said before, WC, no I was not.

[AngelThMan]

Enough time? We took thousands of years to understand gravity, and we still don't think we fully understand it...

Fully understanding something which has already been discovered is one thing (as with gravity). But completely failing to reproduce a scenario, and continuing to try for 500 years with no end in sight, is another (as with abiogenesis). At which point do scientists finally admit their experiments failed? For arguments' sake, let's say that the reality is that life cannot be produced from inanimate matter. At which point do scientific experiments prove that reality?

Let's say scientists try to invent a time travel machine. After how much time will they finally realize that their experiments have proven that a time travel machine is an impossibility?

Are experiments for abiogenesis to remain open-ended and inconclusive for eternity?

...You are answering a question with a supernatural explanation...

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

[littlegrimlin1]

What if there was a secluded society of great scientists that have never heard of gods or religion? If they were working at finding answers to the unknown... how could they ever reach the conclusion that a god created everything? If they've never observed any evidence of this god, how would they generate a concept of what a god is that conforms to their logic and scientific findings?

Isn't attributing an unknown to a god/ghost contradictory? Like saying I don't know... so I know this must've happened due to a god/ghost.

[Watson]

There are ways in which those scientists could stumble upon or come into the concept of a God, but none that would "conform to their scientific ways of thinking." If they aren't willing to observe and examine evidence outside of that way of thinking, well, they aren't very good scientists, now are they?

[Scented Nectar]

There are ways in which those scientists could stumble upon or come into the concept of a God, but none that would "conform to their scientific ways of thinking." If they aren't willing to observe and examine evidence outside of that way of thinking, well, they aren't very good scientists, now are they?

Science has never been unwilling to observe or consider claims of gods. There is simply nothing to observe, no indicators saying it needs further consideration, nothing indicating that gods are anything other than an emotionally charged concept. You speak of evidence outside science, but that doesn't make sense, since evidence is by definition acceptable to science, without needing to conform to anything other than being evidence. Where is the evidence? Thinking about a concept or idea does not make it real. At most you will only fool yourself into faith-'believing'. Others might ask you for some proof of these wacky claims, and it's pretty obvious why.

[Minimalist]

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

Which is why we regard "believers' as foolish. Supernatural is not "nature."

It's your fairy tale...you can make your boy anything you want him to be.


Except real.

[lukec]

Just jumping in here! Sorry if I cover old points!

How many years did people believe the earth was flat? I'm sure it was a hair or so more than 500. AND YET THEY WERE WRONG! Point being, they had no way of getting that informacioné. Just because there is no definitive proof that abiogenesis occurred, (other than the simple fact that life exists) does not mean that it didn't happen. This is especially true since it has certainly not even been a hypothesis (at least in the modern iteration) for over 500 years, and doubtless a scientifically testable one for more than 25o or so (A la Pasteur proving that germs exist).

Angel's arguments seem to be, yet again, a rather long winded and repeated argument from personal disbelief.

[tavarish]

At which point do scientists finally admit their experiments failed?

When their experiments fail.

For arguments' sake, let's say that the reality is that life cannot be produced from inanimate matter. At which point do scientific experiments prove that reality?

They don't. But they can demonstrate it if one hypothesis, such as "life can be produced from inanimate matter" is falsified.

Let's say scientists try to invent a time travel machine. After how much time will they finally realize that their experiments have proven that a time travel machine is an impossibility?

At the exact moment that the hypothesis "time travel is possible" is falsified.

Are experiments for abiogenesis to remain open-ended and inconclusive for eternity?

No, only until it is falsified. Until then, it still remains a valid question.

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

My orange is a newspaper.

I can play with words too.