Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[josephpalazzo]

The components of life are not the same as life. If it takes a billion years to formulate the mere building blocks of life, how much time is left "mathematically speaking" to create a divergence of life forms ------------ at the same time throwing in a catastrophic meteor, asteroid, and comet now and again.......

Obviously you haven't read the articles. FYI, the goal of some researchers is to create life from inert matter, which is what would have happened in the early history of the planet. And that feat is just around the corner. But keep your in the sand as you are probably not interested in getting an education. Ignorance is bliss.

[aitm]

The components of life are not the same as life. If it takes a billion years to formulate the mere building blocks of life, how much time is left "mathematically speaking" to create a divergence of life forms ------------ at the same time throwing in a catastrophic meteor, asteroid, and comet now and again.......

and yet a creator can be simply "imagined" into existence…..how very….rational and…scientific of you…..gee golly..was a meteor involved? How about Merlin? LOLOL…..yeah…by golly you are really into rational thinking…..oy vey

[Sargon The Grape]

The Universe was created. And unless someone can make a biological living thing from dirt and water, I will have to say that God is the only logical explanation for life.

Congratulations, you've learned how to regurgitate what you heard in Sunday School. Now if you have an actual argument, please feel free to lay it out; otherwise you're going on the block list along with all the other drive-by theists.

[LittleNipper]

Congratulations, you've learned how to regurgitate what you heard in Sunday School. Now if you have an actual argument, please feel free to lay it out; otherwise you're going on the block list along with all the other drive-by theists.

Now if I said, "Congratulations, you've learned how to regurgitate what you heard in Secular Science." You would at least call me a self-righteous lout. Sorry, but I believe at the very least, the scientific method must be substantiated by repeatable experiments. And there must be observable occurrences. If you do not wish to believe in GOD that is your prerogative; however, at least be honest enough to realize that there are gaps in "scientific" theory that must be filled with opinion/belief that is not only found among Bible thumpers.

[stromboli]

Now if I said, "Congratulations, you've learned how to regurgitate what you heard in Secular Science." You would at least call me a self-righteous lout. Sorry, but I believe at the very least, the scientific method must be substantiated by repeatable experiments. And there must be observable occurrences. If you do not wish to believe in GOD that is your prerogative; however, at least be honest enough to realize that there are gaps in "scientific" theory that must be filled with opinion/belief that is not only found among Bible thumpers.

100% in agreement. Please show us how the existence of god has been, in your words, "substantiated by repeatable experiments" and "observable occurrences". And the gaps you speak of? I'd like to see some examples.

The truth is true and will remain true no matter what you claim otherwise. Science is based on observation, gathering of evidence, experimentation and repeatable tests. It is "secular science" because nothing in science has to this point proven a god exists. The opposite has happened; science calls into question the veracity of religion. This is the 21st century if you want to use an ancient text or a set of Bronze Age principles to guide your life, you might want to rethink that.

[Sargon The Grape]

Now if I said, "Congratulations, you've learned how to regurgitate what you heard in Secular Science." You would at least call me a self-righteous lout.

This argument is flawed on so many levels I'm not even sure where to start. Did you seriously just compare knowledge gained by experts with "classes" that are "taught" by housewives with nothing better to do on a Sunday morning?

Sorry, but I believe at the very least, the scientific method must be substantiated by repeatable experiments. And there must be observable occurrences.

Well at least we agree on something.

If you do not wish to believe in GOD that is your prerogative; however, at least be honest enough to realize that there are gaps in "scientific" theory that must be filled with opinion/belief that is not only found among Bible thumpers.

And this right here shows me that you do not understand what a theory is.

LittleNipper, I am a skeptic. To convince me that current science is flawed, I'm gonna have to ask that you be at least as knowledgeable about said science as I am. So far your knowledge is barely better than an American elementary student. I have read your Bible cover to cover, and while I may not have a perfect memory of the whole thing, I can at least claim to have read and understood it, and have notes and annotations I can fall back upon. This is true of most everyone you will talk to on this forum. So maybe you'll understand if I'm more than a little frustrated that you don't understand my position a quarter as much as I understand yours.

[LittleNipper]

This argument is flawed on so many levels I'm not even sure where to start. Did you seriously just compare knowledge gained by experts with "classes" that are "taught" by housewives with nothing better to do on a Sunday morning?
Well at least we agree on something.
And this right here shows me that you do not understand what a theory is.

LittleNipper, I am a skeptic. To convince me that current science is flawed, I'm gonna have to ask that you be at least as knowledgeable about said science as I am. So far your knowledge is barely better than an American elementary student. I have read your Bible cover to cover, and while I may not have a perfect memory of the whole thing, I can at least claim to have read and understood it, and have notes and annotations I can fall back upon. This is true of most everyone you will talk to on this forum. So maybe you'll understand if I'm more than a little frustrated that you don't understand my position a quarter as much as I understand yours.

If you cannot create a living, reproducing organism with all your "scientific" reasoning, intelligence and capabilities; you possess absolutely nothing to support such occurrences naturally. Your frustration only emphasizes a Christian's forgiving nature in understanding your own misconceptions.

[Baruch]

Scientists believe they are all powerful ... so anything think they can build, they can, anything they think they can know, they can.

So if you challenge them on artificial life or something that doesn't exist now, they will claim that it is only a matter of time.

Scientists shouldn't try to compete with Jules Verne ;-)

Modest people aren't megalomaniacs.  But thinking one knows what G-d wants, is also immodest.

[Sargon The Grape]

If you cannot create a living, reproducing organism with all your "scientific" reasoning, intelligence and capabilities;

Stop. There is no theory of abiogenesis, only a hypothesis. Science does not claim to know how life formed. We have a good idea of how it happened and where we ought to look, but anyone who claims to know is lying; including those who know that a god did it.

[LittleNipper]

Stop. There is no theory of abiogenesis, only a hypothesis. Science does not claim to know how life formed. We have a good idea of how it happened and where we ought to look, but anyone who claims to know is lying; including those who know that a god did it.

Stop. You seem to claim there is no GOD and yet you have no proof that life can originate without HIM. I at least see God working through various people and in my own life to bring closure and meaning to all this. I don't see you producing one rational reason why anyone should wish to see tomorrow let alone enjoy getting old.

[Sargon The Grape]

Stop. You seem to claim there is no GOD and yet you have no proof that life can originate without HIM.

And you have no proof that it can originate with a god because you have not properly established what a god is. Any hypothesis currently out there is still a better explanation than your god at this point in time, because said hypotheses are based on real chemistry which we know quite a lot about. Until you can properly explain what a god is, a god is a valid explanation for jack diddly squat.

[LittleNipper]

And you have no proof that it can originate with a god because you have not properly established what a god is. Any hypothesis currently out there is still a better explanation than your god at this point in time, because said hypotheses are based on real chemistry which we know quite a lot about. Until you can properly explain what a god is, a god is a valid explanation for jack diddly squat.

That maybe so; however, you are the one at a disadvantage if you are wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll never know. But God says He is light and love. We have light and love.  And at least we fully understand what it is to try to exist without any love. This must count for something, and not towards atheism.

[Sargon The Grape]

If I'm wrong, I'll never know.

Or you could end up in Helheim, Hades, Outer Darkness, Ferri, Mictlan, Irkalla, Naraka, Annwn, Tuonela, Yomi; I could go on, but you get the point.

[LittleNipper]

Or you could end up in Helheim, Hades, Outer Darkness, Ferri, Mictlan, Irkalla, Naraka, Annwn, Tuonela, Yomi; I could go on, but you get the point.

I believe salvation comes by God through Christ. What exactly do you believe in --- where "science" lacks answers. The Bible is clearly where Atheists muster their attacks. They don't seem to waste their time disproving other religions.

[Sargon The Grape]

I believe salvation comes by God through Christ.

Good for you.

What exactly do you believe in --- where "science" lacks answers.

I have the courage to say "I don't know" and leave it at that. I don't feel the need to worship a God of the Gaps.

The Bible is clearly where Atheists muster their attacks. They don't seem to waste their time disproving other religions.

Apparently you have failed to notice that our main target on this forum is Islam, not Christianity.