Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

Paul, I think what AngelThMan is saying is that, science will never, ever create life synthetic or otherwise, completely from scratch. As in, with no tools or equipment of any kind whatsoever. Essentially, it is impossible for a human being to just create life with nothing but his bare hands and his mind.* Doing this might be rather interesting and, if it were done, would still prove nothing about God except that it is in fact possible to create life from scratch in the first place. It lends more to God than against Him.

*We are discounting a certain natural body function here.

In that case, I guess mankind has never really cured any diseases.

You realize that scientific discovery is made with nothing but bare hands and minds? We do have to make tools along the way, as we don't rely on the principle of "magicmandunit" to guide our endeavors.

---

Who says creating life frmom scratch would require tools and equipment on a human being's part? Why do we require such things to create life from non-living material? If a man created life with simply his hands and mind, would not those things be his 'tools'? Were there a scientific explanation behind his creation of life with nothing but hands and mind, would it still be magic? Is it any less magic because there is an explanation behind it? Not the way I see it. No more than the color blue stops being blue once you explain how it got to be that way.

Still blue, still magic.

And if we couldn't create life from literal scratch, with neither tools nor equipment, how would it go a long way in supporting the idea that God is not necessary in the first place? If anything, I would think it shows the opposite! It shows that without tools or without equipment, life cannot be created by any one or any thing but God.

So science creates life and you rationalize it by saying it wasn't real because we used tools? Are you fucking serious?

What exactly are you arguing here? You'd have to ignore all of human civilization to make such a shitfaced assertion that the necessity of tools is somehow a BAD thing. The creation of life isn't something only explained by the supernatural, so stop trying to move the goalposts and recognize the achievement for what it is.

If they came across a cure for cancer, would you call it illegitimate because they didn't form it from dust with a magic wand?

[Watson]

@ Paul- I know you can't manipulate the world on a molecular level or create genetics of any kind on your own. What I am suggesting is that, if there was a human being capable of that, would it still be magical just because he did it without tools or equipment, or is it scientific because there was a natural explanation for what he did? Or, is it both? Magic with a scientific explanation does not negate the fact that it is magic.

As for supporting the idea of whether a God was necessary or not, I don't think it supports the antithesis at all. In my mind, it simply proves that a.) a sentient consciousness had to be present in the formation of life from nothing, and/or b.) that it is possible in the first place to create life from nothing.

@ tavarish- I don't understand your point about curing diseases, so please elaborate.

You have a good point about having used our hands and minds to create tools along the way, but what I am proposing is the idea of whether or not it is scientifically possible to create life from scratch, with nothing at all. Is it possible for a human being to do so?

EDIT: Now you're just fucking ranting, Tav.

[Paul the Human]

@ Paul- I know you can't manipulate the world on a molecular level or create genetics of any kind on your own. What I am suggesting is that, if there was a human being capable of that, would it still be magical just because he did it without tools or equipment, or is it scientific because there was a natural explanation for what he did? Or, is it both? Magic with a scientific explanation does not negate the fact that it is magic.

If there is a scientific explanation for something... it is, by definition, not magic. No man will ever speak the words, "Let there be life!" and have it work. That would be magic. If a man someday created life from scratch without the use of tools beyond his own hands and mind, and could scientifically explain how he did it... and then do it again... and then other people duplicate it... it is science... not magic.

As for supporting the idea of whether a God was necessary or not, I don't think it supports the antithesis at all. In my mind, it simply proves that a.) a sentient consciousness had to be present in the formation of life from nothing, and/or b.) that it is possible in the first place to create life from nothing.

What it would demonstrate is that the proper ingredients, in the proper situation, can combine to become life. Based on what we know about the workings of the universe, it is then likely that something similar could happen without any external input from a sentient source. In other words, no creator deities were necessary to 'wish' life into the universe and that it is a highly unlikely scenario.

My original point (in my first post to Angel about this) is that he clings to the belief that science will never create life from scratch, because it runs counter to his belief in god. But... if it were to ever happen, he would be able to make excuses and justifications that allow him to dismiss it and continue believing in god. So why bother?

[Minimalist]

Magic with a scientific explanation does not negate the fact that it is magic.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


--Arthur Clarke

How come 'jesus' was happy to turn water into wine instead of doing something really useful, like, say.... freeing his homeland from the Romans?

[Welsh cake]

Who says creating life frmom scratch would require tools and equipment on a human being's part? Why do we require such things to create life from non-living material?

That's absurd Watson. How else are we supposed to accomplish this means to an end without the proper equipment or technology? That mentality would have you trying to build a house, with your face.

And don't you dare say "faith".

[Thor]

Paul, I think what AngelThMan is saying is that, science will never, ever create life synthetic or otherwise, completely from scratch. As in, with no tools or equipment of any kind whatsoever. Essentially, it is impossible for a human being to just create life with nothing but his bare hands and his mind.* Doing this might be rather interesting and, if it were done, would still prove nothing about God except that it is in fact possible to create life from scratch in the first place. It lends more to God than against Him.

*We are discounting a certain natural body function here.

I sense the goal posts being moved....

[Ace Otana]

if it were done, would still prove nothing about God except that it is in fact possible to create life from scratch in the first place. It lends more to God than against Him.

So if it was done and proves that life can start without the need of a god, this then some how supports your god belief? Huh? Where is the logic in that?

If anything it leans away from god.

If life can start on it's own without the need for a creater, then this proves that god was never needed to create life. It leans away from god not towards it.
Same thing for the universe. If it can start on it's own naturally without the need for a god, then why believe a god was behind it? The whole thing leans away from the god conclusion, making the god claim even less credible (then again you can't really lose more credibility if you already have none).

[Minimalist]

Paul, I think what AngelThMan is saying is that, science will never, ever create life synthetic or otherwise, completely from scratch.

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

--Arthur C Clark.

Given that....what are the odds that a bible-thumping twit like Angel is "right."


For that matter, what evidence is there that his 'god' created life from scratch? It's a story told in a discredited old book. For all we know, amino acids arrived via asteroid strike.

[AngelThMan]

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.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

progress guys!