| Allfreedom99 said:
Science can be described as; The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The early humans did this, but didn't know what science really encompased. |
That's a pretty good definition though I would be more restrictive and specify that modern science is the formalised and systematic...
We did a lot of things that are now part of science before we had science but a lot of modern science's advance has to do with formalising the scientifc method so there is a standard that we try to achieve (not always, only human...). I would also add a part after experiment that says " and the development of models based on both".
It's like Observation -> Model (theory) -> Experiment -> back to observation of the result of the experiment forming an hopefully virtuous cicle.
Still, it's a pretty good definition.
| Allfreedom99 said: Agreed. Science is not living and breathing. I could have used better wording in this instance. A more appropriate explanation of my point is that there is an absolute truth that exists, but man on his own will likely never be able to prove it without any doubt. |
Not with science. We can only approach it asymptotically without ever reaching it. There is just a point where the difference is small enough to be meaningless, like saying that the earth is a sphere in day to day conversation instead of precising that it is an irregular oblate spheroid for example. Other, like Dawkins feel that the likelihood of a god existing is low enough as to be meaningless and take that leap of faith (which it is, no matter how small a leap it might be).
As for religion, it can only prove that absolute truth to us upon our death where we will either see we were right (theist in the right religion), we were wrong (theist in the wrong religion or agnostic/atheist if a god exist) or no proof at all (everybody if there is no god).
| Allfreedom99 said: You come from the premise of, "our Universe and its properties exists by means which we cannot fully explain with sure confidence, however they exist outside of any real possibility of a creator or higher being." |
Not quite. The premise is that regardless of whether such a creator exist, because he is (if he exists) from outside the universe he cannot be studied with science. Since he cannot be studied by science, assuming its existence is not scientific.
| Allfreedom99 said: This is the same approach as saying, "My car has absolutely no maker, or designer. That mass of metal, rubber, frabrics, ect just became a car on its own." |
Mor like: there is such a thing as a car and I do not know what caused it to be, nor can I prove or disprove whether it was made by an intelligent agent from outside the universe (supposing humans didn't make cars but they appeared in nature). Since I can neither prove nor disprove such an agent, supposing that there is one would cut short the enquiry as to the origin of the car to "because god made it" or something equivalent and thus is a sterile and unverifiable hypothesis. The only logical conclusion is not to make such hypothesis and see if i can find evidence of mechanisms that could have created that car without such an agency.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Using science one can determine by examination that a car was designed and made by an intelligent maker. |
No you can't. All you can say is that it looks too complicated to have been made by natural means and the temptation is then to conclude that it must have been made by an intelligent maker but if you do not look for mechanisms that could have made it naturally then you are not going to find them.
| Allfreedom99 said: Im sure you will try to counter this |
Oh my god! You read my mind! 
| Allfreedom99 said: but indeed when discussing the origin of our universe the premise of a scientist should be to use science to try and prove whether the universe can sceintifically exist without the existance of a designer, which they have yet to do even though you and some scientists claim they have. |
Well, normally they should claim that the probability of the universe needing a designer is infinitesimally small as you can never disprove (or prove) a designer totally (he could have designed through evolution for example, which would be the view of the Catholic church). it is however not easy to constantly keep a strict language.
| Allfreedom99 said: The current mindset of the scientist is to say, "The existence of our Universe required no intelligent maker" |
More like: The evidence we have point to a universe that does not need an intelligent maker to have happened.
It doesn't mean that it wasn't made by an intelligent maker that was powerful enough to make it look like he wasn't needed, it only means that it is what the universe looks like to us.
| Allfreedom99 said: They might as well say,"The existence of my car required no intelligent maker" |
More like: The evidence we have about cars and how they come about points to a universe were cars do not need an intelligent maker to happen.
Of course, in our world we have evidence of cars needing an intelligent maker, but that is because said maker(s) are part of this universe and can thus be observed and could be experimented upon if we needed to understand a car's origin. The sentence I wrote would only be valid in a universe where cars occur naturally and we have no a priori knowledge of their origin.
| Allfreedom99 said: The universe exists with certain laws just like a car was made with certain laws of what its designer made it capable of doing for specific reasons. Do you not see the truth in this? |
Again, you start with the premise of a designer and ends with the conclusion of a designer, do you see the turning in circle in this?
| Allfreedom99 said: I agree I may have articulated the big bang theory not percisley accurate. I have some relative understanding of it, but the problem is I have read so many different views on it from different scientists that there can be slight differences depending on who you read or talk to. |
Understandable as these are mind bending ideas and even now our understanding of it is not complete se there can be many slightly differing explanations.
| Allfreedom99 said: Now, first of all I could easily punch a huge hole into your theory right off the bat. The farther back in time we go you say the space would be smaller and smaller until there is no space at all. So you are essentially saying space came about from no space at all... |
That's not what I say, it is what the evidence the universe give us say.
Like I said, mind bending.
It gets worse. You may have heard that you cannot go faster than light as it is the fastest thing in the universe? Well, while it might be the fastest thing IN the universe, the universe itself can expand at a rate faster than the speed of light. Black holes can in theory have so much gravitational force (read space bending force) that they can bend the space around their event horizon faster than the speed of light. The matter itself doesn't go FTL but the space does. Astrophysics is totally awesome if you don't mind your brain melting every so often.
| Allfreedom99 said:
How does that theory even get discussed in realm of science? you have no space which then becomes space. Essentially you are saying that at the farthest back that time can possibly go there was "jack Sh1t" in existence and then eventually you have space, matter, gravity, elements, laws, chemicals, stars, planets, life, ect. |
Because that is what the evidence we have point to. The theory was originally formulated soon after Hubble (after whom the space telescope was name) discovered that the galaxies were moving away from each other, indicating an expanding universe.
Interestingly, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted it mathematically but because there was not enough evidence of an expanding universe for it to be the main scientific theory at the time (the main theory was a steady state universe) he proposed a constant to balance the equation but when we got evidence of an expanding universe thanks to Hubble he abandoned the idea (it is an example of an assumption that turned out to be false after new observation).
Some time after Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe a Catholic priest* proposed what is now called the big bang theory, basing it on general relativity and Hubble's observations.
At first it was not widely accepted, in part because it was proposed by a priest and was thought to be an attempt to put god into science (like the ID guys are trying but with much less success) as the prevailing theory before the big bang was of a steady state universe with no beginning nor end, whereas the big bang theory introduced a beginning to the universe, thus a creation point, thus supporting the theistic viewpoint.
The reason big bang theory is prevalent today is because evidence was discovered to support it, most importantly the cosmic background in the 60's.
So the reason why it is accepted is not because scientist wish it to be so, when they accepted it they accepted it despite wishing it not to be so but because the evidence pointed towards it being right.
* see padib, creationists can make scientific theories, they just have to play by science's rule.
In science, ultimately it doesn't matter whether it makes sense to our mind at first, but what matters is what the evidence points to.
| Allfreedom99 said: How does that get even considered in science, which teaches that in order to have certain matter there must be something to make the matter in the first place? |
It doesn't teach that, I think you mean the conservation of mass, which state that in a closed system mass is not created nor destroyed, only transformed (but makes no claim as to there being something or somebody to make it in the first place).
And yes, it does seemingly contradict it. But the origin of the big bang (that is what caused it) was outside of this universe just like for those who believe god created the universe, he was outside of it too. And as neither are in the universe, neither are necessarily bound by its laws, like the conservation of mass. The difference between both is that there is evidence that says the universe had such a beginning, but there is no evidence saying that that beginning was caused by an intelligent agent (nor is there evidence saying it wasn't).
A lot of people believe that the big bang was caused by god, but if you practice science, given that it could have happened without a god then it is a suprefluous hypothesis.
| Allfreedom99 said: How could beings such as us have the ability of understanding and the ability to use logic if in the beginning there was no intelligent force to allow us to have the ability to understand. |
You are just pushing things back. if we assume that our ability to understand and to use logic implies that there was an intelligent force to allow us to have that ability then that intelligent force's ability to understand and us logic implies that there was an intelligent force (call it metagod if you want) to allow it to have that ability. Repeat ad infinitum.
If there is a break at any point in the chain whereby one of those entities could have arisen without an prior intelligent entity giving it its intelligence then that entity can be humans just as much as it can be god.
So there is a logic in either postulating an infinite chain if intelligent entities creating one another (and maybe we will create truly intelligent entities in a computer simulation one day and be gods to them that can change their world at will) or in postulating that one of those entities did not need a prior intelligent entity and then the logical place where to put the break in the chain is with us as we have incontrovertible evidence of our own existence but we don't have it for god.
Postulating that one of those entities did not need a prior intelligent entity and breaking the chain at the second level (god) is totally arbitrary given the lack of evidence for his existence.
| Allfreedom99 said: According to a scientist with no belief in God |
I do not know that all scientist in the field of abiogenesis are atheists/agnostics but some of them are bound to be.
| Allfreedom99 said: life began as chemical reactions. chemicals do not possess the ability to understand or use logic. |
Nor do they need to. Does wood and a spark need to ability to understand or use logic to create fire? It so happen that through mechanism as yet unknown (though we have some ideas, you can call it god if you wish) a molecule was formed that had the ability to replicate itself, consuming resources in its environment to do so. Self replication and the ability to use what's available to you to do so (consuming resources) being the basis of life.
Once you have even such a rudimentary beginning you can have the princpiples of evolution applied to it: random changes during copying due to the imperfection of the copying process and outside forces like ionising radiation on the one hand and natural selection on the other hand as these primitive forms of life compete with each others for resources (with some eventually evolving to use others as resources).
| Allfreedom99 said: If there is no intelligent force to input the code of understanding to eventually arise in more complex life, then how would the first cells of life obtain that code of knowledege and intellect to appear later in more complex life forms? |
You assume that the first cells had knowledge and intellect. All that is needed to start the machine is a molecule able to reproduce itself. As the reproduction is not going to be 100% prefect, if the change results in a molecule that is more competitive it will strive, if the change results in a molecule that is less competitive it will either disappear or survive without striving as much as the others.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat for a few hundred million years and the complexity is so great that intelligence appears. As intelligence allows you to overcome other physical deficits (like not being as fast as your predator) it is an evolutionary advantage, so mutations that lead to more intelligence will tend to get spread more widely, until you get a life form intelligent enough to ask itself where all that intelligence came from.
| Allfreedom99 said: The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, |
evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells.No, you just need one molecule able to reproduce itself. If a simple molecule cannot reproduce itself then it cannot evolve into more complex molecules nor into organic molecules. No reproduction, no life, no evolution.
The only question is, how simple is the simplest molecule that can reproduce itself? Some scientists are trying to do so by removing genes from prokaryotic cells and see how small a genotype they can get but that is just a start as llike you said, before the first cell there probably were even simpler life forms with no ability to separate themselves from their environment with a cell wall.
Like I said in other posts, abiogenesis does not have a leading theory yet because our understanding is still limited, but once you have a living being, no matter how simple, evolution can kick in (well, as soon as said being reproduce enough to have many copies, some with mutations, competing for resources).
| Allfreedom99 said: Furthermore the parts required to provide life clearly have specifications that rule out most substitutions. |
You forget the possibility that there may be parts that are present but do not contribute to life (like non-coding DNA in modern lifeforms). Mutations in those parts would be much less likely to cause problem in the short term and a combination of mutations (including one changing that part from non-coding to coding) can beneficial.
Look, I talked about a lot of that in my previous posts answering to padib so you might want to read them if you haven't yet.
| Allfreedom99 said: Not once has abiogenesis produced any form of DNA in all studies done so far |
True, like I said, we do not understand everything yet, but that is no excuse for not looking, quite the opposite.
Also, you assume that the first forms of life had DNA, which is far from a foregone conclusion as DNA in modern cells needs the cell structure to reproduce DNA in new cells so that you have a chicken-egg situation. It is quite likely that the first forms of life had a more rudimentary form of reproduction. What is it? We do not know yet.
| Allfreedom99 said: abeogenesis is therefore not close to unlocking any mysteries of how the first living cells |
Like I said it is not close on the human scale but compared to how long we thought spontaneous generation was how things worked (like crocodiles spontaneously came to life from logs rotting at the bottom of the pond, maggots spontaneously came from dead meat...) and how short an amount of time we have been working on abiogenesis (about 200 years) we did remarkable progress.
That it is close is jsut my estimation and hope and as for whether it will prove out to be close or not, only time will tell.
| Allfreedom99 said: Also more species are dieing off than the amount of new species we are finding. |
A lot of this is due to us plying nature to our need and destroying habitats in the process.
| Allfreedom99 said: The new species we are finding isn't due to new ones evolving, its due to an already existing species existing that we have just newly discovered. |
Not all of them. For example in one of my prior posts I talked about speciation in lake Victoria's Cichlid population following a change in environment with the introduction of the Nile perch and higher levels of pollution. That speciation is mostly through hybridization (at least at the moment) so you might not recognise it as a speciation event on the ground that there were Cichlids with the various characteristics before, only in different species that did not formerly interbreed, not in the same species; so a lot also depends on how you define a species which is a harder job than it looks.
There is also the case of the "Nylon Eating Bacteria" which is very unlikely to be an already existing species that was discovered as the enzyme it uses to digest Nylon is not efficient at digesting other materials and Nylon didn't exist 100 years ago (so there was no reason for there to be a bacteria with such an enzyme at the time).
| Allfreedom99 said: The other explanation is species A mates with Species B and is able to create Species C.
|
Hybridisation, yeah. That's what I was mentioning earlier.
| Allfreedom99 said: No scientist that Im aware of has yet to prove that a certain species has evolved from another species without natural means of reproduction.
|
Well, evolution doesn't claim that species can evolve without natural means of reproduction anyway. Your sentence is very strange though so I think I am misunderstanding it. If you think I do could you rephrase it.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Occam's razor suggests to use the most simplest method when it applys in science. The most simple explenation is often times the correct one.
|
It also needs to be supported by evidence. The simplest explanation that is not supported by evidence (or worse, goes against evidence) is not likely to be the correct one.
It also only deals in probability as the simplest explanation fitting the evidence may not be the correct one but you can't know that until you have more evidence disproving that explanation and thus making the new simplest explanation that fits the old evidence and the new the most likely to be correct explanation (even though it wouldn't have been the simplest explanation before).
| Allfreedom99 said:
Well, I dont see how the big bang without a creator is more simple than the universe with a creator.
|
The universe has a certain amount of complexity. God has a certain amount of complexity too. Therefore an explanation that has both the universe and god in it is more complicated than an explication that only has the universe in it. (God+Universe) > Universe in terms of complexity
| Allfreedom99 said:
The more simple and logical choice as I have laid out is a universe is a product. A product requires a maker.
|
| Allfreedom99 said:
You cannot start with nothing and get something as the phrase goes.
|
So how did you get god?
| Allfreedom99 said:
Sri Lumpa, I believe it because it is the simplest explanation that makes sense and that offers the best evidence based on what information we have available.
|
First, explanations do not offer evidence, they are supported or disproved by them.
Second, it is neither the simplest explanation (as it adds a very complicated element to the already complicated universe) nor has it evidence supporting its necessity (on the other hand there is no evidence disproving its possibility, nor can there be).
| Allfreedom99 said:
The big bang still does not offer enough explanation even though some evidence could support it.
|
It is not that some evidence could support it. It is that evidence does support it.
| Allfreedom99 said:
There are some deep flaws in it.
|
I do not know how you can determine that given that it is obvious that you only have a very superficial understanding of it:
| Allfreedom99 said:
And a universe that exists without some form of intelligent intervention goes completely against any scientific principal out there
|
No it doesn't, care to name one?
There are plenty of scientists that believe in an universe without some form of intelligent agent causing it, are you claiming that you understand science better than them?
| Allfreedom99 said:
and yes the scientists who subscribe to it without questioning the its validity are just denying the obvious. Do you not see the evidence?
|
Not only do I see it, I also have a better understanding of it than you (though even my understanding could improve, it is one complicated universe).
| Allfreedom99 said:
First part, it is likely that some believe in God because they are afraid of the unkown, but I would argue for many its because the evidence gives it a lot of weight.
|
Nope, the evidence point to the notion of a creator being unnecessary to the creation of the universe as we know it.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Also the belief in a creator is much different than the belief in unicorns, leprechauns, dragons ect. You cannot put them in the same category. There is absolutely NO physical evidence that suggests unicorns exist. It is based on stories and fairytales.
|
There is no physical evidence that suggest god exist either. Even if you believe that your god is not based on stories and fairytales you have to admit that other religion's gods are, from your point of view, based on stories and fairytales (conversely, from their point of view your god is based on stories and fairytales).
| Allfreedom99 said:
There is however some heavy evidence that a creator/ higher intelligent being does exist.
|
Source please. At least padib gave me links to his beliefs so I could see them. all you do is repeat that there is heavy evidence without backing it up.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Im like a broken record, but the proof is in the pudding. We can see, observe study, and examine our planet, other planets, our sun, the stars, and the universe and see a PRODUCT.
|
If you start looking for a product you will find a product. If you start looking for how things work you find out that they can work without the need to involve a god hypothesis.
| Allfreedom99 said:
a product that has laws. LAWS CANNOT JUST BE IMPLICATED BY NOTHING! Can a rock create laws on its own? answer me that, please. You cannot deny there are certain laws in place that make everything work the way they do. If not then science would not be reliable as so many variables would constantly be changing without laws.
|
A rock does not create laws, it obeys them. You imply that the laws describing the behavior of nature as we observe it need to have been created.
Guess what. Even if you are right that the bible (or whatever holy text you subscribe to) is a literal account, that literal account describes the behaviour of god. For god to have a nonrandom behaviour there must be laws in his home universe the he has to obey to. Where do those laws come from? Metagod? If not then you admit that the laws that he must by necessity be bound to (otherwise his world would not be reliable as so many variables would constantly be changing without laws) can be implicated by nothing.
And once again you have to either go on an infinite regression, stop at the first step (this universe) or stop at an arbitrary number of steps, whose number you arbitrarily decide to be 2 (our universe and god's universe).
| Allfreedom99 said:
Have you given thought to why the snowflakes come out of the clouds the way they do with that particular pattern? yes the cloud develops them to appear in that fashion. Here si something interesting about snowflakes: As the snow crystal grows, it's often blown about in the sky. The air and temperature around the crystal are consistently changing. Snowflakes are very sensitive; even a small change in these conditions can lead to different growth patterns.The final shape of the crystal reflects these growth conditions in what it endured. The longer the snowflake is blown about in the air above, the more complex the resulting snow crystal. No two crystals have the exact same history so they don't grow in the same way. no two have ever been the same, or ever will be.
|
So snowflakes can be shaped by their environment but species cannot?
And I bet the probability of each snowflake having the exact shape that they turn out to have is extremely small, yet each of them do draw that extremely small odd on their first try.
See, extremely low probability of a given configuration happening is not such a barrier to order even without an intelligent agent acting behind the scene.
| Allfreedom99 said:
It is more logical to believe in one God rather than a multitude of gods, if you look at our universe and its properties in the correct prism.
|
Let me guess. The correct prism is to assume the existence of god to see the existence of god. If not then what is the correct prism.
| Allfreedom99 said:
If you observe the universe and come to the realization that it is a product with certain laws in place then you will see it has a maker.
|
If you observe god and come to the realisation that it is a product with certain laws in place then you will see it has a maker... recurse ad infinitum
| Allfreedom99 said:
One maker makes more sense than a multitude of makers to me, because of how many things work together and in a uniformal manner. A universe with conflicting laws cannot exist. For instance in a setting you cannot have the law of A and also not-A in the same time and same relationship. It would be like me saying, "My house is by the street, and it is not the case that my house is by the street". that contradicts itself. The universe incorporates certain laws that just work together. In light of that it makes the case even more that it was one Designer that formed the product of the universe together with the laws that all work together.
|
I am not implying multiple makers for this universe. I am following the logical conclusion that if this universe needs a maker then that maker's universe needs a maker too...
Each maker creates the law of the next maker's universe until the final maker (which you call god) or first if going in the other direction creates the law of this universe.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Also if the Designer of the universe is the ultimate being that incorporates all knowledge, power, eternity and energy then the need to support that being is null. That being is self sufficient.
|
Ah, the old copout.
Even if god exists and even if he is omniscient and omnipotent in this universe it does not necessarily follow that he is in his own universe anymore than me creating an artificial world where I can spy on all my artificial intelligences (omniscient) and change the world at will (omnipotent) means that I have those power in my universe (the one we both share).
| Allfreedom99 said:
Yes there is a dose of faith that has to be used in this instance
|
Yup, which is why it is not scientific.
| Allfreedom99 said:
but also it is evident that a scientist also MUST use a dose of faith when try to explain that the universe originated with NOTHING, because that defys what science can prove. That goes against science at its core. Both view points MUST require some form of faith to believe them.
|
They don't need faith, they need evidence. So far the evidence point oto it being a possibility. Another possibility is a series of contracting and expanding universes, ours being the latest. The problem with that one is that it gives the same problem of regression to infinity as god does.
However, regardless of whether it is a problem or not does not matter. What matter is what the evidence shows. That the universe started much smaller than it is today, so small that the pressure and temperature was too high for atoms themselves to exist, is strongly supported by the cosmic background and any theory wanting to replace the big bang will have to explain it too.
Whether what came before the universe is nothing or another universe or our universe bubbled off another or any other possible theory for what caused the big bang is not settled and might never be as you are then trying to look outside the universe. but if it is ever to be settled then it will be by evidence, not by faith.
| Allfreedom99 said:
So I argue you too have to have Faith that the Big Bang transpired with NOTHING. Faith, and belief is required in that instance so you too must say IMB (In My Belief).
|
I don't have faith that the big bang transpired with nothing. I know that the evidence strongly points to the big bang happening and that one of the possibilities is that there was nothing before it (though not the only possibility).
As for whether evidence will show if it transpired from nothing I don't need to have faith in that either, I just have to wait for scientist to make their experiments and let the new data speak for itself. If it supports the big bang transpiring from nothing, good. If it supports another theory, good too. If it support none of the current theories the neven better as it means that we will learn more about the universe than if it supported our theories.
I can only hope that that evidence will be found (if it ever is) before I die.
| Allfreedom99 said:
You and some scientists can continue to try and explain the existence of a universe with laws and order that began from nothing, but through the study of science we know that matter can not just appear when nothing was there to begin with.
|
In this universe, no, it would break the law of conservation of mass. But the event causing the big bang is by definition not in our universe and we do not know what rules it would follow.
| Allfreedom99 said:
If a scientist built an empty room that was impervious to rot, decay, and rust and sealed it off, no matter how long you wait you cannot get the creation of a complex product like a computer in that room. |
You mean evolution can't have happened because earth is a closed system? Well, it isn't, there is a big ball of nuclear fire pouring energy on it.
| Allfreedom99 said:
As far as your last statement, you make it, because you have the incorrect view of who the Intelligent Designer really is.
|
I have a different view of what would be needed for a god to exist. You have in no way shown that it is incorrect to assume that he would have rules to follow. In fact if you assume there aren't rules for him to follow then how does he do his thinking? That would be like a human with his neurons firing randomly. that would make god into a constant state of epileptic seizure... actually you might be onto something as it would explain a lot about the bible.
| Allfreedom99 said:
It comes down to using some logic and I agree a dose of faith to believe that God is self suffiecent and eternal. One who does not need support, or other intelligent beings.
|
Not so much faith as the refusal to consider the logical proposition that to function anything needs to follow rules as if there are no rules there is only chaos and thus no function (at least no useful one). If there are rules then those rules need explaining just as much as ours do. So if there can be such a thing as self-sufficiency then the god hypothesis is redundant.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Its a much easier explanation than the one you argue, which also requires faith. Obtaining a complex product with the start of nothing requires tremendous faith, because it falls outside of the realm of science in what we know.
|
It doesn't require faith, only evidence. Scientists did not come to those conclusions by knowledge through faith, but by putting forward the best explanation they could for the evidence they have. It's not their fault that the world turned out to be more strange than you are comfortable to handle.
And it doesn't fall outside of the realm of science as we know, although if your post is representative of your overall knowledge of science then it does seem to fall outside of the realm of the science you know.
| Allfreedom99 said:
The argument makes much more sense, because through the sudy of science we see a complex product, which is the universe. The two options are it came about in same way or form by a complex being, or else "magic" has always existed and somehow a universe just spontaneously appeared with the codes to create all matter, laws, and life.
|
You got it exactly backward. The god option is the magic option. You can't have god without having magic as magic is affecting the world through supernatural means. God is by definition a magical being.
Saying that god is not a magical being is the same as saying that god cannot do miracles; then he wouldn't be god.
As for the origin of the law of the universe, it is likely to be beyond the realm of science. Science is about finding what they are, but it doesn't mean it will necessarily tell us where they come from. Anybody can choose to believe that they came from god but whatever they came from, what matters in science is what they are.
| Allfreedom99 said:
a complex being makes more sense than a spontaneous existance of a complex product.
|
You said that you believed god to be self-sufficient, this means that your version of god is a complex being that spontaenously came into existence.
Science does not claim that the universe came into being spontaneously, nor does it claim that it started complex. It started with some rules which as it cooled gave rise to complexity. And yes, it does seem to break the second law of thermodynamics. But if that is what the evidence suggest then that is what we need to follow (it is a compl).
| Allfreedom99 said:
How would I sound to a scientist if I went to him/her and said, "hey I was sitting on my bed last night and I saw pieces of metal, transistors, microprocessor, and other computer components form together and they all came together to make a computer right in my lap!" They would ask me if I take medication.
|
Except that it is not what science claim at all and is closer to what you claim. Science claim that the universe started simply, being just a very small and extremely dense point of pure energy, and that through the action of certain natural laws some parts of it became more complex. You claim that the universe came into being in a few days (if I understand your belief), which is closer to your computer being formed from complex components in a short time. Your explanation also need an extremely complex component whose coming into being you refuse it explain.
Also, the reason scientists claim that is because they have evidence supporting it. If you tried to explain your computer coming together on its own as a scientific theory other scientists would ask to see the evidence you have upon which you base your theory and what experiment you propose to conduct to see if its results support your theory.
And you know what? If you could show through experimentation that what you observed was possible then however absurd it would seem on its face it would be a valid scientific theory. All it would mean is that the universe you live in is weirder and even more amazing than what was previously thought.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Stars have not produced any DNA that we have seen.
|
No, but they have produced the atoms which are the components of DNA from simpler atoms. My point was that you do not need an intelligent agency to get a complex product from a simpler component and a given process.
| Allfreedom99 said:
So far scientists have yet to provide create anything that is even basic building blocks for DNA from dead matter.
|
Actually they can create DNA from dead matter (DNA synthesis) but they do not have a complete natural process for doing so.
And again, you also get fixed on the DNA part. It doesn't have to start out being DNA any more than it needs to start out being intelligent. All it needs is to start out reproducing itself, sometime imperfectly, at which point evolution takes over and DNA and intelligence and other traits are by products of it.
| Allfreedom99 said:
Its looking like even though dead matter can produce some more complex things it has never produced anything even close to the building blocks of DNA.
|
Nor does it need to. It only need a self-replicating molecule upon which evolutionary processes can be applied.
| Allfreedom99 said:
So this should not even be in the discussion if it hasn't even come close.
|
it should not be in the discussion because it doesn't need to be the start of life. You are the one who brought DNA in the conversation and claimed that it was necessary to abiogenesis, refusing to consider the possibility that DNA may not be the simplest for of life possible.
Also, all this is abiogenesis which I have admitted upfront is far from settled science. But even if you could disprove all of today's abiogenesis theories you still would not have disproved evolutionary theory nor would you have disproved the big bang theory.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
