Do You Believe In God?

[spotanjo3]

Deductive logic states that if according to science life in the most rudimentary single celled form cannot miraculously appear from nothing, then something must have placed life in the universe.

If life cannot come from nothing then something must have created life, an entity that is capable of creating life in the universe must be God.

Its very simple science, an empty lifeless void will remain that way from now until the end of time, thus life must have originated from something. Call it what you will, but I choose to that entity which created life "God".

Precisely!

 

[KSP]

In order for your logic to work, you must assume there is no natural way for single cell life to have formed. That's bad logic. It sounds like you already have your conclusion, you're just trying to figure out how to make everything point to it.

There is no way for single celled life to emerge from an empty void, its already scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Life on earth in the single cell form, came from panspermia of some sort, most likely from a meteor. But it is impossible for life to suddenly appear from nothing in the universe.

The very first singled celled life form cannot exist unless something created it. I choose to call that something, "God".

I'm a man of science, I don't believe in the biblical sense of god, but to negate the fact that a superior godlike entity created the very universe that we live in, is really being juvenile.
Life in the universe came from something, it did not just come to be on its own accord.

Everything in life can be broken down to deductive logic, once all the impossible is removed, the only answer left is the right answer. No answer can explain the creation of life, thus the only answer left is a superior being of some sort.

 

[grossaffe]

There is no way for single celled life to emerge from an empty void, its already scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Life on earth in the single cell form, came from panspermia of some sort, most likely from a meteor. But it is impossible for life to suddenly appear from nothing in the universe.

The very first singled celled life form cannot exist unless something created it. I choose to call that something, "God".

I'm a man of science, I don't believe in the biblical sense of god, but to negate the fact that a superior godlike entity created the very universe that we live in, is really being juvenile.
Life in the universe came from something, it did not just come to be on its own accord.

Everything in life can be broken down to deductive logic, once all the impossible is removed, the only answer left is the right answer. No answer can explain the creation of life, thus the only answer left is a superior being of some sort.

You claim to be a man of science, but I am seeing a tenuous grasp on science. If science agreed that there must be a god, we'd have heard of it before your revelations here.

 

[KSP]

That is not science. The axiom that life comes from life and not spontaneously created from non-life is not to say it is impossible for life to form not from life, but rather the axiom was refuting the belief at the time in the so-called life-force. It was believed that some mystical life-force existed that would create Maggots out of nothing. Instead, after experimentation with rotting meat in a sealed jar, it was proved that maggots did not form when the meat was sealed away where other life couldn't get to it. That wasn't good enough, though, because then people complained that the jar was sealing out the life-force, so the experiment was repeated with a mesh covering the jar instead of sealing it, so the life-force could get into the jar, but still the maggots did not appear. So based on this experiment, we get the axiom that life comes from life, which does not disprove a natural abiogenesis creating the first, most rudimentary forms of life that evolved into what we are today.

Your experiment proves nothing when it comes to the origin of life.

In order to prove that god exist, one must simply place an baron lifeless rock within an void. The baron rock will remain baron from now until the end of time if remained sealed within the void. This proves that life cannot spontaneously exert itself into existence, and that all life come from an unknown catalyst. God.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You claim to be a man of science, but I am seeing a tenuous grasp on science. If science agreed that there must be a god, we'd have heard of it before your revelations here.

Science does not claim that there must be a god, but it does claim that life cannot exist without an catalyst, thus it has already proven the existence of god.

Only a fool can believe that the vastness of the universe and the life that resides within such a universe came from nothing.

 

[grossaffe]

Your experiment proves nothing when it comes to the origin of life.

Exactly. It disproved the life-force, hence the axiom that life comes from life, but it does not disprove abiogenesis as you claim.

In order to prove that god exist, one must simply place an baron lifeless rock within an void. The baron rock will remain baron from now until the end of time if remained sealed within the void. This proves that life cannot spontaneously exert itself into existence, and that all life come from an unknown catalyst. God.

So your proof that god exists is that you arbitrarily created an experiment in your head and arbitrarily decided upon the results. Now that's science.

 

[Muffins]

As a man of science, I must say that after thirty pages the evidence seems to demonstrate that nobody will be changing their minds.

 

[osaka35]

There is no way for single celled life to emerge from an empty void, its already scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Life on earth in the single cell form, came from panspermia of some sort, most likely from a meteor. But it is impossible for life to suddenly appear from nothing in the universe.

The very first singled celled life form cannot exist unless something created it. I choose to call that something, "God".

I'm a man of science, I don't believe in the biblical sense of god, but to negate the fact that a superior godlike entity created the very universe that we live in, is really being juvenile.
Life in the universe came from something, it did not just come to be on its own accord.

Everything in life can be broken down to deductive logic, once all the impossible is removed, the only answer left is the right answer. No answer can explain the creation of life, thus the only answer left is a superior being of some sort.

"scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Where do you come from? the 1940s? You should pick up the latest research on abiogenesis. If you truly are one to think scientifically, I think you'll find the latest research will completely change your current position (since your position relies on abiogenesis not being scientifically viable, which is false). Heck, start at the PAH world hypothesis and keep up the research until you reach the rest of us in the modern day.

 

[Foxchild]

I'd say one of the biggest problems the formation of life has without intelligent design, is the fact that nature/evolution cannot "learn". Suppose it's possible for single cell life to have spontaneously popped into existence (which I would think scientists would have been able to replicate by now under controlled circumstances, but apparently we can't even do it with intelligence behind it). It would be irrelevant unless that single cell were also capable of reproduction. Otherwise it lives, dies, and we start over. Without learning, what's to stop the same "design" from being used over and over again. It's not like the universe can go "Hey, I know, it needs to be able to reproduce." The ability to reproduce cannot evolve into being, by definition. You have to get it right on the first go. Oh, and that successful, reproducing cell must also be capable of eventually evolving or everything just stays at that level forever. Sure a room of monkeys with typewriters might eventually produce a Shakespearean play, but there's also nothing to stop them from just pressing "q" over and over for eternity. Basically, the odds are ridiculously against the spontaneous existence of sustainable life.

 

[osaka35]

I'd say one of the biggest problems the formation of life has without intelligent design, is the fact that nature/evolution cannot "learn". Suppose it's possible for single cell life to have spontaneously popped into existence (which I would think scientists would have been able to replicate by now under controlled circumstances, but apparently we can't even do it with intelligence behind it). It would be irrelevant unless that single cell were also capable of reproduction. Otherwise it lives, dies, and we start over. Without learning, what's to stop the same "design" from being used over and over again. It's not like the universe can go "Hey, I know, it needs to be able to reproduce." The ability to reproduce cannot evolve into being, by definition. You have to get it right on the first go. Oh, and that successful, reproducing cell must also be capable of eventually evolving or everything just stays at that level forever. Sure a room of monkeys with typewriters might eventually produce a Shakespearean play, but there's also nothing to stop them from just pressing "q" over and over for eternity. Basically, the odds are ridiculously against the spontaneous existence of sustainable life.

Early life swapped genes around. It was crazy back then. Look into "Horizontal gene transfer" for an explanation on how this is possible.

 

[KSP]

Exactly. It disproved the life-force, hence the axiom that life comes from life, but it does not disprove abiogenesis as you claim.


So your proof that god exists is that you arbitrarily created an experiment in your head and arbitrarily decided upon the results. Now that's science.

This is not an arbitrary experiment, scientists have attempted to spontaneously seed life within a baron void, with no success.

Ask yourself, do you honestly believe that singled celled life can spontaneously will itself into existence without an external catalyst? How juvenile is that?
If you wait long enough then life will suddenly just come to be? Really, is that what you people really believe?

I don't know what's worse people who believe in God or people who believe in life suddenly appearing from nothing. lol

C'mon, if God does not exist, then life must have just up and appeared out of thin air. How likely is that?

 

[Foxchild]

Early life swapped genes around. It was crazy back then. Look into "Horizontal gene transfer" for an explanation on how this is possible.

Interesting... So, replace "reproduction" with "ability to transfer genetic information" in my previous post. Still has to "evolve" that particular characteristic in one try.

 

[T-hug]

I believe in ancient astronaut theory.

 

[KSP]

"scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Where do you come from? the 1940s? You should pick up the latest research on abiogenesis. If you truly are one to think scientifically, I think you'll find the latest research will completely change your current position (since your position relies on abiogenesis not being scientifically viable, which is false). Heck, start at the PAH world hypothesis and keep up the research until you reach the rest of us in the modern day.

I just heard you spout a lot of nonsense, didn't see a single shred of proof that life can spontaneously appear without a catalyst.
Seems like the anti-god in you is getting angry.

You prove to me that life can come from nothing, and I'll believe in your godless universe. Until then its all pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.

 

[Foxchild]

I believe in ancient astronaut theory.

And here I was hoping we humans would eventually become smart enough to send life seeds back in time and start ourselves...

 

[KSP]

And here I was hoping we humans would eventually become smart enough to send life seeds back in time and start ourselves...

That would make us God.
Now the next question is how many parallel universes exist where we fucked up and never created ourselves. lol

 

[osaka35]

Interesting... So, replace "reproduction" with "ability to transfer genetic information" in my previous post. Still has to "evolve" that particular characteristic in one try.

Ahh, nah, that's not what the situation was back then. The situation back then was different than what we have today. Imagine more of a lot of complex hydrocarbons (which are one of the most common compounds in the universe), that through various reasons turned into things like amino acids, which eventually became rna, which eventually became self-organized. The thing is that life was not some huge jump that happened at one point. It was this huge slow change, that wasn't "life" one second and then the next was. It took a very. very. very long time, and eventually became something we now would consider life (or at least, life-like). And even after that, it continued to take a very long time afterwards before distinct cells were formed.

Basically, the chemicals weren't distinct organism all living together, they were just all these complex chemicals there intermingling and interacting, that through sun radiation and whatnot (energy being put into the system), chemically reacted enough times in the right way to push its way in the direction that eventually become organized enough for evolution to start (after a bunch of other steps/things). Before that point where evolution could be a thing, there was no "evolution" in the sense that we know it. Just horizontal gene transfer and chemical reactions(more or less).

It is a pretty complex thing, and we don't know everything, but we have a lot of solid evidence that this, or something very similar, is what happened. There's zero reason to believe that there wasn't a natural method to it, at any rate. That was a bit complex, sorry. It's been a while since I've had to explain the basics.

 

[grossaffe]

This is not an arbitrary experiment, scientists have attempted to spontaneously seed life within a baron void, with no success.

Ask yourself, do you honestly believe that singled celled life can spontaneously will itself into existence without an external catalyst? How juvenile is that?
If you wait long enough then life will suddenly just come to be? Really, is that what you people really believe?

I don't know what's worse people who believe in God or people who believe in life suddenly appearing from nothing. lol

C'mon, if God does not exist, then life must have just up and appeared out of thin air. How likely is that?

Biology is a series of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions happen outside of biology. Given the right environment, chemical reactions could result in ribonucleic acids.

 

[drakegraves]

I really don't mean to sound contentious, I don't have an ego about this idea, and you can take it with a grain of salt! I just want something to add to the conversation!

I think Atheism and Christianity are similar in one specific way: Neither belief system has enough evidence to prove or disprove the real core questions they're asked by nature of the subject. And the people who are loud enough to preach either one, seem to do it sometimes for vain and almost even Freudian reasons. People who are confident in what they believe tend not get in your face and try to make you believe it, too; that's what people who are in denial do.

I'm not saying this about all Atheists, but many of the ones I've known are small, petty people. They want to appear as a cold logical machine, and they're afraid people can sense their tendency towards whimsy and superstition. They want to convince themselves and everyone around them they're not as suggestible as you are.

Conversely, Christianity can be a wonderful belief system; it results in strong community ties, acts of good will, it even saves some people's lives. But it's too effective a drug for people who are just afraid to confront what a dark place life is, or what horrible human impulses they know they have.

It's too tempting for members of either camp to use their beliefs to of say "See, i'm not running from anything, look at how many people agree with me, YOU'RE the one who's in denial"

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Ahh, nah, that's not what the situation was back then. The situation back then was different than what we have today. Imagine more of a lot of complex hydrocarbons (which are one of the most common compounds in the universe), that through various reasons turned into things like amino acids, which eventually became rna, which eventually became self-organized. The thing is that life was not some huge jump that happened at one point. It was this huge slow change, that wasn't "life" one second and then the next was. It took a very. very. very long time, and eventually became something we no would consider life. And even after that, it continued to take a very long time afterwards before distinct cells were formed.

Basically, the chemicals weren't distinct organism all living together, they were just all these complex chemicals there intermingling and interacting, that through sun radiation and whatnot (energy being put into the system), chemically reacted enough times in the right way to push its way in the direction that eventually become organized enough for evolution to start. Before that point, before that, there was no "evolution" in the sense that we know it. Just horizontal gene transfer and chemical reactions.

That was a bit complex, sorry. It's been a while since I've had to explain the basics.

I understand the principles that you're explaining, as a matter of fact we kind of skimmed over them in chemistry earlier this year. However, the thing I genuinely don't understand about that model is how said living creatures could ultimately evolve to become sentient, let alone sapient. Also I like your paraphrasing of Darwin's "evolution does not leap", but that raises another issue in the sense that under the Darwinian model life evolved over the course of (I don't remember exactly how many) hundred million years, but then stayed largely the same for the ~3.9 (or fewer, again I'm speaking off the top of my head) billion, with only comparatively minor tweaks and mutations. Comparatively that's not just a leap, that's an evolutionary BOUND

 

[KSP]

Biology is a series of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions happen outside of biology. Given the right environment, chemical reactions could result in ribonucleic acids.

In order for this to happen you would need complex hydrocarbons and time, again where does that come from? Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), cannot happen within a void. Again, you go back far enough the same question pops up, what is the catalyst?