Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#76
#76
This is how the Lord made me. If it is knowable I'd like to know. The how's and the why's.
 
#77
#77
RespectTradition said:
I don't understand your response. I am talking about epistemology and the unanswerable questions. I love talking about ideas like the beginning of our universe. However, any questions about things that predate our universe are unanswerable.

Many times, we will use ideas of causality to show the logical necessity for an outside force, let's call it God for short, to have created the universe and set it in motion. This is valid reasoning since nothing that exists or happens in our universe can exist or happen without a cause. The problem comes when someone, who usually wants to poke holes in this idea, wants to then say 'where did God come from' or 'who created God' and smugly think they have proven something. They haven't. The laws of causality that form basis of the arguments for the existence of God cannot be used outside/prior to our universe. This is not a valid question. No matter if you support the idea of God or not, the question is unanswerable and no amount of logic can ever give a semblance of an answer. It is not evil or sinister to ask the question. It is pointless.

If a person wants to use logic based on the laws of this universe to prove that God doesn't exist, then I welcome hearing this idea. I love new ideas, even if I don't always agree with them. If someone can demonstrate to me that their ideas are better than mine, then I will switch my ideas. However, if one insists on using the laws of this universe as if they somehow hold true outside of this universe and then base an argument on that, then I will reject it as the baseless, unfalsifiable argument that it is.
Click to expand...

I see. I've been here before.

If one assumes the existence of God, then one can't ask the question of where God came from. Done is done and all is right in God's world. That will keep many warm at night and that's fine. However, its not that interesting to me.

If one doesn't assume the existence of God, but instead seeks a non-supernatural explanation of what occurred during and before the Big Bang, then one can ask such questions. If you believe I'm on a fool's errand, that's fine. I think it is much more interesting to contemplate.
 
#79
#79
How can you scientifically prove God exists (short of him coming up and shaking your hand)? What instruments and/or devices do we have that could possibly prove that God exists?

Just because we don't have the capability doesn't make it any less true... I'm just curious how some of you come to the conclusion that if it can't be, then it isn't.

(I may have made a huge mistake posting here)
 
#80
#80
volsforever27 said:
How can you scientifically prove God exists (short of him coming up and shaking your hand)? What instruments and/or devices do we have that could possibly prove that God exists?

Just because we don't have the capability doesn't make it any less true... I'm just curious how some of you come to the conclusion that if it can't be, then it isn't.

(I may have made a huge mistake posting here)
Click to expand...

Negative sir. In OS13 politics threads we are friendly and freely exchange ideas. Unless your name starts with a G and an S. Then you should stay the **** out.
 
#82
#82
volsforever27 said:
How can you scientifically prove God exists (short of him coming up and shaking your hand)? What instruments and/or devices do we have that could possibly prove that God exists?

Just because we don't have the capability doesn't make it any less true... I'm just curious how some of you come to the conclusion that if it can't be, then it isn't.

(I may have made a huge mistake posting here)
Click to expand...

Wave yo ghey flag 27!
 
#84
#84
Danl said:
I see. I've been here before.

If one assumes the existence of God, then one can't ask the question of where God came from. Done is done and all is right in God's world. That will keep many warm at night and that's fine. However, its not that interesting to me.

If one doesn't assume the existence of God, but instead seeks a non-supernatural explanation of what occurred during and before the Big Bang, then one can ask such questions. If you believe I'm on a fool's errand, that's fine. I think it is much more interesting to contemplate.
Click to expand...

That is not what I am saying. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, any question, of any sort, that is about anything that predates our universe is unanswerable. All we have access to is this universe. All we can reason with is logic that is valid in this universe. All we can imagine are things that our minds in this universe can envision.

If one wants to posit a purely naturalistic explanation then one is doomed to fail. The laws of nature are laws of this universe. Any explanation would be about things that happen outside of the laws of nature that define our universe and are thus some form of 'supernatural' or 'othernatural' or whatever word you want to use.

I am not saying that God, or some reasonable facsimile, is the only possible explanation. I am saying that anything outside of our universe is, definitionally, otherworldly.

I don't think we can contemplate what predates our universe because our minds are of this universe and I think that anything outside that is, literally, unthinkable.
 
#85
#85
RespectTradition said:
If one wants to posit a purely naturalistic explanation then one is doomed to fail. The laws of nature are laws of this universe. Any explanation would be about things that happen outside of the laws of nature that define our universe and are thus some form of 'supernatural' or 'othernatural' or whatever word you want to use.

...
Click to expand...

When you say "laws of nature" are you referring to physical law or those concerning conscience?

Both bring up different distinct arguments.
 
#86
#86
I am referring to physical laws.

What we define as natural laws are just our observations about how our universe works. Anything from outside our universe would not follow our natural laws and would consequently be un-natural.

For what it is worth, I believe in natural rights and natural morality, but those are different topics and are not what I was trying to say here.

If you want to talk about the origins of rights and morality, I have a thread ( http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/156079-positive-rights-negative-rights.html ) that would be a good place to talk about it. It is one of my favorite topics.
 
Last edited:
#87
#87
orangeslice13 said:
Not so much "expansion" as life.

(Warning The views about to be expressed by OS13 are usually considered wack and often get him in trouble with both Christians and scientist alike.)

To properly understand the question I must first state what I believe.
I believe that God is who he claims to be.
I believe that he chose to reveal himself threw scripture.
I believe that Religion and science do not have to be separated. in fact God created science so God is science.
I believe that when God and science disagree there are two reasons to explain the discrepancy. 1) improper reading of the scripture. (ex. age of the earth) 2) Science has yet to figure out how God did it. (ex. Today's topic)
I believe that it is up to every person to decide for themselves about God.
I believe that others should be respected in their beliefs. Without respect it is impossible to learn about yourself.


My question that started this thread from my point of view should have been " How did God flip the switch that started life?" out of respect for everyone I thought it would be better to ask how life began from a science point of view.
Click to expand...
Must say I agree with all of this :hi:
 
#88
#88
volsforever27 said:
How can you scientifically prove God exists (short of him coming up and shaking your hand)? What instruments and/or devices do we have that could possibly prove that God exists?

Just because we don't have the capability doesn't make it any less true... I'm just curious how some of you come to the conclusion that if it can't be, then it isn't.

(I may have made a huge mistake posting here)
Click to expand...

You absolutely cannot have a scientific discussion based on assumptions, which is what the explanation for God is. If there is no empirical evidence to support a claim, then it becomes philosophical.
 
#89
#89
We did a lot of science based on assumptions in my engineering classes.

Have you ever read about the Duhem–Quine thesis?
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
RespectTradition said:
I am referring to physical laws.

What we define as natural laws are just our observations about how our universe works. Anything from outside our universe would not follow our natural laws and would consequently be un-natural.

For what it is worth, I believe in natural rights and natural morality, but those are different topics and are not what I was trying to say here.
Click to expand...

Actuallly, both bring up interesting questions?

1) Scientifically speaking, aren't the physical law of inertia and the big bang theory in conflict? How can both be right?

2) From a natural law standpoint, how did conscience mysteriously conquer survival of the fittest?
 
#93
#93
txbo said:
Actuallly, both bring up interesting questions?

1) Scientifically speaking, aren't the physical law of inertia and the big bang theory in conflict? How can both be right?

2) From a natural law standpoint, how did conscience mysteriously conquer survival of the fittest?
Click to expand...

1) You're the first person I've ever heard mention that they're incompatible.

2) It never did.

These are all strawmen. Do you have any actual questions?
 
#94
#94
RespectTradition said:
Sorry, you did not specify that your statement only applied to this set of assumptions. My bad.
Click to expand...

The assumptions made in engineering class are those in which cases have been well documented. Correct me if I'm wrong. I've had too many margaritas to think of any examples of differences right now... heh.
 
#95
#95
VOLatile said:
1) You're the first person I've ever heard mention that they're incompatible.

2) It never did.

These are all strawmen. Do you have any actual questions?
Click to expand...

1) Give it some thought.

2) Yes it did (assuming survival of the fittest was ever the law of the land).
 
#96
#96
txbo said:
Actuallly, both bring up interesting questions?

1) Scientifically speaking, aren't the physical law of inertia and the big bang theory in conflict? How can both be right?

2) From a natural law standpoint, how did conscience mysteriously conquer survival of the fittest?
Click to expand...

These answers are based on my understanding of the naturalistic explanations:

1) they are not in conflict to my understanding. I don't think the net inertia of the universe, taking all energy into account, changed with the big bang.

2) Conscience is a survival trait. Early hominids survive better in a cooperative group. Cooperation requires a certain degree of empathy. Conscience derives from this empathy. Those who showed such behavior are more desirable to the group. Those without a conscience exhibit anti-social tendencies that the group tends to reject. Those within the group mate, those outside of the group don't. The genes that affect empathy/conscience are passed on.

By the way, the idea of survival of the fittest or the strongest is incorrect, imo. The better idea is survival of the most adaptable.
 
#97
#97
VOLatile said:
The assumptions made in engineering class are those in which cases have been well documented. Correct me if I'm wrong. I've had too many margaritas to think of any examples of differences right now... heh.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read about the Duhem–Quine thesis?
 
#98
#98
txbo said:
2) Yes it did (assuming survival of the fittest was ever the law of the land).
Click to expand...

It still is.

If you begin to understand survival of the fittest, then you'll realize that the two are completely compatible. Survival of the fittest is all about reproduction - not who can live the longest.
 
#99
#99
volsforever27 said:
How can you scientifically prove God exists (short of him coming up and shaking your hand)? What instruments and/or devices do we have that could possibly prove that God exists?

Just because we don't have the capability doesn't make it any less true... I'm just curious how some of you come to the conclusion that if it can't be, then it isn't.

(I may have made a huge mistake posting here)
Click to expand...

VF27, I don't believe that you've made a mistake.

I don't believe that you or I can prove that God exists.

I don't believe that you or I can prove God doesn't exist.

None of posts ITT should, by my intent, be taken as an affront to anyone's religious beliefs. However, I don't believe that all the answers to scientific inquiries are contained within anyone's bible. If that is offensive to anyone, I'm not sure what to tell you.
 
#100
#100
Danl said:
VF27, I don't believe that you've made a mistake.

I don't believe that you or I can prove that God exists.

I don't believe that you or I can prove God doesn't exist.

None of posts ITT should, by my intent, be taken as an affront to anyone's religious beliefs. However, I don't believe that all the answers to scientific inquiries are contained within anyone's bible. If that is offensive to anyone, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Click to expand...

I agree that one cannot prove it scientifically.

I don't think that anyone should ever use the bible to try and prove a scientific theory. Religion and science are not incompatible. I don't think they even try to answer the same questions. One is about how things work, the other is about how we should act.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top