No, you're supposed to say that therefore the Bible tells you nothing whatsoever about single-celled life.


And so you would not turn to the Bible when people start asking how volcanoes work, right? Unless your position there as here is 'Goddidit'.

I believe that life was inevitable. Just like how bubbles are always round and how objects are naturally attracted to each other(gravity), I believe life's appearance, through various circumstances, is just the way the universe works. In nature, there are several examples of creatures using the most mathematically efficient shapes for various reason. There's no way that can consciously decide to grow shells in such forms that work best. Evolution is nothing but the way the universe works in action relative to the environment the living things are in.

It's kind of hard to find good analogies or put my belief into words, it's more of a feeling I got that there's a lack of coincidence in the natural world when it comes to just the way things are. And I'm a polyathiest, so I don't believe anything was created from any God.

if god did create we should be able to see his big hand come down from the clouds and make certain things we need appear. right? or he should be walking around with a wheel barrow planting trees and inventing little animals.

people think if god created we should have proof of this that is seperate from the things we see everyday. what do you want to see? what is your idea of proof in this instance? they think the big bang theory challenges god being the creator. why is this? what allowed for the space the big bang happened in? what is the fabric of empty space? what created this space? what triggered the big bang? how did all the matter in the universe condense into one tiny atom? i could go all day. the short answer is science doesnt know and will never find the spark of life.

open your eyes and look around. god created this whole universe perfectly and we are here doubting this because there is no proof. check the balance in life and the completley intricate nature of this phenomenon then design something from scratch that matches this perfection and give it consciousness with its own will and freedom. we should be capable of this if spontinatey is. it might take us a couple of thousand years but we are smarter than nothingness arent we? god is something science cant touch, something we will never come close to getting our heads around so to ask for proof of gods existance is an empty demand.

i know if all the scientists in the world had the ability to create life they couldnt come close to doing the job like god did. we sit here thinking we know alot because we do compared to the knowledge we held a hundred years ago. we dont know a thing. sorry people out there who have been trying to convince themselves they are knowledgable. you may be compared to jonny in class you may be the smartest person in your country but in the broard scheme of things you know nothing.

Certainly not what I had in mind.


I'm quite open minded. What have you got? Anything that can't be explained, in principle, without God the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator would suffice.


The idea of the Big Bang does not negate the idea of God. But what it does do is explain a great deal of things for which God was once the only answer. The more we understand about the universe, the less room there is for God. He flees with every new discovery into the remaining recesses of our ignorance, and when we shine a torch into the shadows, He steals off once more into the night. He is increasingly a God of the Gaps, a lazy explanation for those who can't be bothered to actually explain things properly.


The Big Bang didn't happen 'in space', space expanded with the Big Bang.


I don't know, do you?


There are various scientific theories, based on existing but incomplete evidence, which have the potential to explain all of these things. Invoking a God to explain these things instead is not only an infinite leap beyond any evidence we have, but also adds nothing to the debate - because we can equally ask all of those questions about God's existence too.


And so to use God as an answer to scientific ideas is equally vacuous.


The fact that humans can't do something doesn't mean God did. Of course we don't know everything; it is a persistent, irrational and irritating quality of humanity however to always default to the God non-explanation in such cases.

'In case of ignorance, break glass to access church'

Oh you figured that out. It doesn't matter what kind of info or proof you give a closed mind it will still remained closed.

I was watching History's Universe last week and they were saying the current theory of the frame work of the Universe is dark matter. I love that show.

Yeah, 'twas ever thus.


To be honest, I partly agree with you. I doubt our pal jelly metal will change any of his views based on what I or others present to him. But there may be some waverers who read the thread and are influenced (ever notice that all the threads have far more views than they do posts?); and in my experience actually, presenting critical thinking and sceptical approaches to things, whilst never affecting the view the debate is about, can often help people to examine more critically other things which crop up which they have not yet invested in. I've seen it a few times. Not always, maybe not even often, but occasionally.


Never seen it. I do like shows like that though, wish I got the History Channel.

Here is where I have to jump in. What balance in life? Ecosystems are balanced, yes, but they weren't created that way. They were formed with years of trial and error, species coming in and stripping them of resources, overpopulation, food shortages, etc. When we view one and see that there's a balance between all the species of plants and animals, we forget the chaos that lead to something like this forming.

The same goes for the universe on every level. Take star formation for example. The first generation of stars were short lived, but hot and massive. They either ended up as a supernovae, which spews radiation out into space, or collapse into black holes, creating a gamma ray burst, which creates even more radiation. This cycle of large stars dying and being born is being repeated all over the place, it's chaotic, it's not perfect. The only thing you could call it is a perfect waste of energy. The amount of energy wasted is astonishing. Take the sun for example, in one second it puts out more energy than the human race has consumed in it's entire existance, and the sun is a tiny star, and there are billions of stars just in this galaxy. It's the most violent cycle imaginable, and we're not completely protected from it. A nearby supernova could easily wipe out all life on this planet.

In the broad scheme of things you may know nothing either. How do you know god is something we cant touch? I think you're afraid of science touching the question of god's existance, because you're afraid of what the answer may actually be.

Scientists have created artificial cells that can live and produce proteins as their natural counterparts do, but can't replicate


Looks like I was wrong it can live but it can't reproduce and sense reproduction is one of the requirements for life that means it isn't living.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050129/note12ref.asp

No not at all if these huge stars weren't being born and dieing we wouldn't have any of the heavy elements. I think the cut off is either carbon or iron.

The idea of the Big Bang does not negate the idea of God. But what it does do is explain a great deal of things for which God was once the only answer. The more we understand about the universe, the less room there is for God. He flees with every new discovery into the remaining recesses of our ignorance, and when we shine a torch into the shadows, He steals off once more into the night. He is increasingly a God of the Gaps, a lazy explanation for those who can't be bothered to actually explain things properly.

==================================================================


No it doesn't make God less. No one has been able to explain how the big bang/expantion which ever started. Nor has anyone explained that if the universe is everything and if the universe is expanding what is it expanding in. So no the concept of God is not dead.

So okay, we'll refrain from any more debate around what that research actually says unless required, and for the sake of argument say that simply put, scientists can today construct an artificial cell, which cannot reproduce.

What does that mean about God again?

Because God made an orderly or mostly orderly universe. Everything can be explained without his input. But who made the natural laws that we are discovering.

No, it's not dead, I'm agreeing with you. But God in this function is simply used as an anti-intellectual shortcut to explain things we don't yet know. Your concept of God adds nothing to our understanding of these phenomena, but simply adds further questions: where did God come from? What's He made of? How and why did He make the universe?

The answers religion gives to the existential and ontological questions are pseudo-answers which lead to more unanswerable questions.

It means that he is still the only being that can give life. You see the one thing we are missing is a soul to put in that cell to make it live.

Why is God a reasonable answer to that question? And more to the point, what makes you think that question is even meaningful?

A perfect being would not consider him/herself to be perfect always trying to improve something even if that means trying to improve their children.

The introduction of yet more supposition: the soul.

You are actually making a prediction there, rather than an observation. That this cutting-edge science of artificially constructing cellular life will now stall. It hasn't yet - the citation you gave shows it coming on in leaps and bounds, overcoming each problem as it arises. So there's no sign yet that it's in principle impossible for scientists to create a being with all characteristics of life - you're guessing that will happen. I'll keep an eye out on that. For now, this isn't evidence in your favour, it's a what if.


Sounds like more supposition to me. How do you know what a perfect being might think of itself?

It's really a hard one for me. The similar and simple question is, "Which comes first, an egg or a hen?"

Which there's also an answer to, also involving evolution.

Animals were laying eggs long before there were animals similar to what we would now call chickens. The first chicken hatched from an egg.

Agreed. danielost, I find it odd that you try to use science, or your perceived current shortcomings of science, to attack the field itself; yet you do not seem to apply these same standards to the Bible and your view of "God." Simply put, science can't do everything you think it should, so as a whole it is a flawed system to explain our universe--ironically, it is that science is by definition testable that these shortcomings are even perceived; whereas as "God" is not testable, and therefore since we can just believe he is responsible for everything, without testing such hypotheses as we would with science, then God has no shortcomings.

You hold one to testing standards that you do not hold to the other.

Please remember that science is always advancing. We can do *many* things now in the lab that we couldn't do twenty years ago. It is illogical to think we are at the consummate stage of scientific knowledge.

And as for your statement of a "soul" as a component for life: Last I checked, the term is arbitrary and means different things to different people and schools of thought. If you wish to make a true case for how God creates life, you may wish to utilize something more clearly defined.

Ok go ahead and use the bible to prove the lack of God.

I can't speak for Ourmoonlitsun, but for myself I'd have no more inclination to do this, nor reason to think such an attempt would be meaningful, than you would to use the Epic of Gilgamesh to try to disprove the existence of Enkidu. Or, for that matter, using Star Trek: The Next Generation to try to disprove the existence of Q.

Danielost, you seem to have moved away from your original thesis (which, if I understood it correctly, was that because humans at present can't do everything you claim God did, that God must have made life happen) and haven't addressed several of the recent points (mostly from Ourmoonlitsun and I).

In particular, I was looking forward to reading your thoughts on whether the 'soul' is a reasonable postulation in a scientific discussion, and how you would define such a concept; whether you would acknowledge that in the absence of any evidence you have to present, that you have instead hinged your argument on a 'what if' premise; how you know what a perfect being thinks; why God is the best answer to the question 'where did the laws of physics come from'; and how you would answer the problem of infinite regression when introducing proposed First Causes.

Umm...just consult a professional on the matter; I'm pretty sure it wasn't spontaneous either way.

I can answer this question. If you are strictly a creationist the hen came first. If you are strictly an evolutionist then it was the hen. In my case I believe that the correct answer is that which we call a chicken today evolved from what adam and eve called a chicken then. Since the environment has changed from then to now. So todays answer is the egg.

you say god didnt create and proof is needed to varify if he did. give me a hypothetical idea of proof that would suffice. short answer not possible. but if you want it to be recognised as truth you need proof. thats a necessity of science not every human. if science recognises it or not doesnt change anything.

' the more we understand about the universe the less room there is for god' why? why cant we find out gods formula? god doesnt make things that seemingly arise through chance????? if god makes something it has to be clear cut it wasnt a part of chaos? right? no way

'the big bang didnt happen in space' so it happened in a place with no space? if there was a little amount of space which then expanded after the big bang, what was out of the bounds of this space. no space. not possible. how can space expand? the universe is expanding but the space the universe is in is infinite. space cant change its size. it doesnt have a size.

you dont know the fabric of space. no one does. why isnt there an explination for why the space is there or how? thats simply over looked because it cant be answered. people think if it cant be answered it has to be put down to god. which isnt true. science steers clear of the unanswerable for this reason. the more science finds out the more they are coming to grips with the idea of 'god' because they are beginning to unravel the perfection in creation or chaos as skeptics would call it.

i know if humans cant do it doesnt mean god did. but to think there is nothing out there far bigger than us and our knowledge that gave rise to this phenomenon we are a part of and cant come close to figuring out seems very closed off. to me

I don't think the Universe is alive per say, but it has, otherall, a potential to make life. And as anything in nature, potential only means a matter of time. Also nature does have a long time to do things, but also it occasionally goes erraticly rapid and then backs off to normal. Good point though on the universe.

so if god created something it wouldnt start with an unstable balance then evolve to a more stern one? why is this?

this is something i ask to all skeptics. what is your expectation of gods creations?
why should it be seperate to what the earth or the universe is today?
why is the idea of chaos something god didnt create?

in the broad scheme of things i too know nothing we all know nothing. this isnt a fear of mine.

This is true for all but me at least as far as I know. I know for a fact that there was something before this life. Something that I did not consider to be life the day I was born.

Maybe life was created by GOD, but in the way we think......in the Bible it didn't said how it was specificaly created......man couldn't understand maybe the process, they used their imagination to describe it.

i dont understand what you mean by that.

i dont think man could comprehend what god did. maybe he just clicked his fingers and allowed it to start. maybe he did some insanely complex things. the bible was written by man so mans understanding (which of corse is fallable) was put in a metaphorical story like all the bible. maybe describing god as a 'he' is degrading the power of the creator.

I remember my first thought which was on the day I was born.

it was "SO THIS IS LIFE!!!!!"

I also remember seeing the shadowy movements of the nurses and docters.

Interesting since babies don't have any type of complex cognitive thinking until much later. Being born is probably quite a shock and horrific for an infant.

hang on, u think we know the process for building a planet???

and yet we cant predict the weather???

ironic that i believe people believe in god as god supposedly answers the questions they have no answers for.

if god created life why did he make everything so complicated??? like your circulatory system? or digestive system? he is god and can do anything so why not make it simpler??

i think its funny people believe god created everything, when only a few hundred years ago they thought god made the world flat, but yeah im sure people are right about this hahahaha.

foolish to believe we know the answers to these questions, we never will. crediting god is just an easy answer to an unaswerable question

actually some believe that spaces uniform temperature means that it expanded uniformly with matter. instead of many people thinking the big bang occured in space, so our universes space was created at the point of the big bang.

there is no other way to explain the uniform temp across the universe. if the hot matter from the big bang expanded into a pre existing space then there would be a hotter core where the big bang started.

this rapid expansion occured when the three forces seperated thus creating our universes physical properties such as gravity etc and lead to the rapid expansion of space and matter with it.

there are also other theories than just the big bang coming from nothing. one being two seperate parallel universes colliding, with matter from both universes creating our own. this would therefore create a universe seemingly from nothing.

there are too many theories, i personally think saying god did it is an easy answer for some.

like how did the greeks explain the sun etc? oh yes as they didnt understand it they said gods controlled them, coincidence we think god created life too??

Okay, I assume you mean proof of creation as opposed to evolution? Or as opposed to abiogenesis? Or something along those lines. To one extent, that's me doing your job for you, since I can't really imagine what evidence you might have. I'd be willing to consider (critically) anything you throw up; and what I'm interested to know is how on earth you think you know God made life without evidence to demonstrate it. But there we are.

In terms of what evidence I would accept to show that God created life/the universe/anything at all, there's another problem which is that God has not been shown to exist, so to start to invoke Him in arguments about the origin of life is rather jumping the gun. Again, I don't really know what sort of evidence would 'work' here to show He exists - you're making the claim, you provide the reasons you believe that. Anything that demonstrates His existence. You seem to know the Fellow, ask Him!

If you don't believe you have anything which would convince others as to either God's existence or His creation of life on Earth, then I guess debates like this one are pointless, aren't they? They will inveitably consist of "God did it!" "Why do you think that?" "He just did."


No, whether or not something is recognised by scientific consensus doesn't alter its truth. But on subjects at which science is a good investigative tool, and where research has been done, it is a fairly good indication of reality. It's also true that some humans do not require evidence before believing. This is fine, for them, but I have no truck in disregarding those people's views as worthless. They can have their belief without evidence, but the minute they open their mouths to enter debate or try to convince others, they've lost my interest.


It is possible that there is a God who made the universe, works in it all the time, but has worked very hard to make everything he does indistinguishable from nature. This sort of a God would be undetectable; there would be no way to know whether He exists or not. Therefore there is no reason to think He does.


Space and time came into being with the Big Bang. These are fascinating questions, and I don't have ready answers. But I have to admit I fail to see their relevance in this discussion. Perhaps you should start a new thread on that, or run its relevance by me again?


You're right that we don't at present know exactly what space is; you're wrong that it's "simply overlooked". There are many, many physicists working on the problem, and making progress all the time. It's a very difficult question, but it is hugely relevant to many scientific ideas, and great progress has been made. For instance, look at the leap forward in our understanding of spacetime which came about with Einstein's relativity theories. You seem to have an erroneous image of lots of scientists stroking their beards in a Science Meeting and saying "well, let's brush that one under the table, shall we, and ignore it". Utterly wrong.


Agreed. There are some questions science, at present, is unequipped to answer (the nature of spacetime is not one of them). You are also correct to say such questions should not automatically be answered "God."


'God' is not a scientific concept, as you almost pointed out above. Therefore science is in no way 'coming to grips' with Him. Perfection is also an unscientific concept. Your claim makes very little sense in scientific terms. You are mistaken to think that science is moving towards an acceptance of the divine. It is categorically not.


I can see why you'd think that, and it's not the first time I've heard it. However, I am open to the idea of God - I've said several times in this thread that there may be a God, but that there's just no reason to think He did what you say He did. I am an agnostic, leaning strongly towards atheism simply because I see no evidence for anything paranormal; this leaves me open to (and eagerly anticipating, even) any evidence for anything like this. To me, it's those who already believe in God who are closed-minded - they already 'know', so why consider any evidence to the contrary?

Again, jelly, of course God may have created the 'chaos', or universe, or whatever. I have no idea. But it is the default position that He did not until there's a reason to think He did. What is that reason?

Just for clarity though jelly, what is it you're claiming? Is it that God created everything, but did so in an undetectable way?

Whilst I can well believe that you believe this danielost, it is pretty much impossible, as Tommyo pointed out. Memory is a funny thing; its vividness does not correlate with its accuracy. Try reading a little about the nature of memory, and see if it challenges you.

Oh by the way, just to be clear, you're ignoring my questions from earlier in the thread, right? I don't mind, just wanted to be clear.

beleiving in god doesnt isnt so that this will answer the questions science cant. i beleive there is something out their that gave rise to everything. this seems to me more plausable than everything being a product of an accident.

the word god to most people has a religios accent to it so call it --------. classify it anyway possible. dont stereo type it. it may be easier to come to terms with if its thought of as a force or energy. something that changed nothingness into somethingness.

I dont expect anything. The universe exactly as it should if there was no designer. It's violent, it's hostile, it's not fit for life at all. Just because one safe haven called Planet Earth arose which is equiped for life on some of its surface, some of the time does not mean it's design. On the contrary, we will die here, the chances of us reaching another habitable planet are so slim we wouldn't bother if not for our craving for knowledge and exploration. If you believe in some kind of apocalypse, then why did God put the rest of the universe there when his children only inhabit one tiny corner of it?

Of course, it's entirely possible that God created the universe this way, but if thats true, how can you call him all loving? It's like giving a person a massive mansion but killing them if they left the one room they're allowed in.

creation isnt opposed to evolution or abiogenisis. thats a common misconception. i dont think 'god' made life i think 'god' gave rise to everything including evolution along with everything else ever. to me this seems more likley than everything being one big accident. this means to me nothing has a meaning. there is no purpose for anything. which makes life empty and meaningless.

faith
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
to people confined by their own capacity this sounds rediculous. but you cant fathem the idea of something so much more than anything we know without it.

subjects in which science is a good investigative tool is one when the heading doesnt imply the word god in it.

im not trying to convince you im saying science answers questions to a certain point. most of its info on the past is theory based beyond lets say 5000 years. it takes educated guesses based on info collected in a small timeframe. the big bang is only a theory (not saying its right or wrong) but there is not proof to back its credibility only general opinion of the scientific community. general opinion isnt proof not even to science. go to 1000000 years ago and everything is guessed apart from maybe some fossils. scientists dont have proof of their theories which is the very reason they are called theories.

of course god is not a scientific concept. it cant be recognised without proof. scientists need him to appear to them and say he is god and give them a memoir of himself that can be trialed and tested and matched on the periodic table with the element of 'god'. science isnt moving into the acceptance of the devine its moving to the acceptance of there being no answer to something physical that gave rise to existance. even the unlocking of dna cant be achieved because not all traits are coded in the dna. theyve figured out around 40% so far and have said a couple of times now that its looking more reasonable to say there is a soul that holds some qualities.

beleiving in 'god' isnt contrary to science. it doesnt make science false to me at all. science can only answer the how not the why.

again i think a force gave rise to existance because i dont see any other reason for existance to have occured. one big accident makes everything meaningless to me.

im also claiming everything was created.
its not that god is undetectable its that science doesnt have the knowledge or capacity to detect it. science confines itself by its own rules. we dont have the capacity to fathem god in a scientific sense. consciousness needs to evolve higher to perceive god.

dont know were designing comes into it. thats just derived from how we create. some look at the cup half empty others dont.
Apocalypse (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις -translit. apoca'lipsis, meaning literally: the lifting of the veil), is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the majority of humankind.
a prophetic revelation, esp. concerning a cataclysm in which the forces of good permanently triumph over the forces of evil.

we are responsible for creating the love not 'god'.
dont get the mansion part.

So it sounds a bit like you're saying God (or whatever you want to call it) made everything, but that He made everything look exactly as it would if there wasn't a God.


Only in the sense that nobody has decided for us why we're here. We get to make our own meaning. Which to me is a far more attractive proposition.


I can fathom the idea of something greater than ourselves. I simply reject it due to lack of evidence. There's a difference. Faith is indeed 'belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'; I say another word for that is 'irrationality'. If there's no logic or evidence behind an idea, then there's no reason to believe it.


I think you're saying that science is okay as long as it's not investigating claims of God, where it has no place. I'd say that's partly true, except where people posit God as an explanation for things science also investigates. As you did. Where questions are asked which are not directly answerable using the scientific method, this becomes a philosophical question, rather than automatically a theological one.


You misunderstand the scientific use of the term 'theory'. In science, the 'educated guess' is known as a 'hypothesis'; these hypotheses are tested using scientific experiments, which attempts to prove them wrong. If they are not proven wrong by that experiment, the educated guess 'survives', and must do so repeatedly (i.e. must survive many attempts to disprove it). As long as it survives, it can become part of a proposed mechanism of action, which is called a 'theory'. Scientific theories can therefore also be factual, depending on the completeness of the evidence for them. The only guesses in science are made and then rigorously tested. Science is not made of guesses, it only begins with them.


To accept God as part of the universe, scientists would require evidence to show that God is part of the universe. That's all. If God is not part of the universe, today's science has nothing to say about Him.


No it isn't. There are many scientific theories which have the potential to understand the origins of the Big Bang, and there are many, many scientists devoted to researching the problem. Not one of them proposes God; not one of them proposes everyone give up because we'll never get there. We've come in the last hundred years further than in the last ten thousand in terms of understanding this. There's no sign of the investigations stalling.


I'm sorry, I think you need to cite your sources there - I couldn't make any sense of your argument. Once again, you seem to think scientific endeavour has stalled where it has not. Who are 'they'? 'They' are doing something there which, coincidentally, has far more to do with your misunderstanding of the nature of science than with actual science. Again you want us to think that scientists tried something, stalled, and said "it must be the soul!" Seriously, who are 'they'? Names?


I agree, believing in God isn't contrary to science. But as soon as God is posited as an explanation for phenomena in this universe, then it is.

If that were true, science should have stalled by now, many times, in the way you think it has. It has not. Unless God is completely uninvolved in the workings of the universe, in which case everything will just carry on as if there is no God.

-

Why would science stall if and only if there was a God. I think science will not stall as long as there are laws out there to be found. Laws put into effect by God.

Then you've altered what you were saying.

You originally seemed to claim that science had stalled (in the area of creating artificial life) due to the inability to create a soul, which would mean, according to you, that scientists could never create anything that showed all signs of life.

The in the ensuing discussion it became apparent that this area of science has anything but stalled, which changed your observation into a prediction: that science will stall eventually in this field because they can't create a soul.

Jelly metal then went on to claim, again incorrectly, that the study of DNA has stalled because scientists have realised that they're not taking account of the 'soul'.

If God is tinkering with the universe to make it work, science will eventually break down and be unable to answer questions without resorting to Him as an explanation. It has not yet, so any suggestion that it will is pure speculation.

Does God have nothing more to do with the universe than to have written the laws of physics? And how do we know that God wrote them? Or that anyone or anything wrote them?

how can something made by god look like it was made by god? what do you mean by this?

if this is a big accident it wasnt caused. right? so there is no reason for us to exist. there is no reason for existance. im not sasying someone decided why we are here im saying someone decided that we are here. anyone can create their own why. but no one gets to choose if they are here, we just are.

'if there is no logical evidence behind it there is no reason to beleive it'. putting a hold on 'logic' and waiting for beleiving to show some truth entails faith. not beleiving due to lack of logic is the opposite to faith. proof and logic arent the step before faith.

so the big bang has been proven? its not an idea (theory)? i know what an experiment and hypothesis is im just saying the past cant be proven. you cant proove the past only guess. im talking very long ago. there is no practical experinments for alot of the theorys of science. especially the past. yet the theory is taught as truth. which seems to be a double standard.

once they unlock dna you will have your proof there is no god because there will be no soul. dont hold your breath.