Explain please

[Xaquin44]

What sort of facts are lacking to prove God doesn't exist, except that He doesn't show himself to you in some physical sort of way. What sort of physical facts do you have to prove there was a big bang? None! What sort of physical proof (facts) do you have that some sort of evolutionary process bred life? None! So yours requires faith too.

The research is not conclusive. There is no evidence; only research and some really nifty math to go with it. The argument to prove, through concrete evidence, fails on both sides of this debate. Both rely on faith.

You do know the difference between faith and science right?

There are vague things pointing to the big bang (the fact that galaxies and stars, etc. are moving away from a specific point) which really don't prove too much.

There are definate examples of evolution. Some of which I've posted here.

There is NO evidence supporting god. Belief (with no evidence) is hardly proof. At one point, everyone on the planet thought the world was flat. They were all wrong.

 

[PsyOps]

You do know the difference between faith and science right?

Faith is not a term that is indigenous to religion.

Here are some of the definitions I pulled up:

confidence or trust in a person or thing​

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.

the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.

There are vague things pointing to the big bang (the fact that galaxies and stars, etc. are moving away from a specific point) which really don't prove too much.

Steven Weinberg wrote “The First Three Minutes” which describes the events of the first three minutes of the universe. His description of the 3 degree radiation background supports that our universe may have been born from a single event. It’s speculated, by many, that it was a big bang; but no one really knows because no one was there. From our limited point in the universe this radiation appears to be everywhere and they are unable to point to one central point. There are arguments on both sides that the universe is expanding/collapsing. Devoid of absolute witnessed fact (as you are demanding of God) you simply are reduced to believing which is right and putting your faith in that belief.

There are definate examples of evolution. Some of which I've posted here.

Agreed. I’m asking about life itself. What proof is there that there was some evolutionary process that bred life? If there was a big bang what came before it and how did it get there? If the universe is just a continuous process of expanding and contracting – a self-contained energy – how did it get there? You can’t just say “it always was just there” because that’s the argument Christians give for their God; He always was. How did all this stuff get here and what were the circumstances that bred life and led to man to create such things as religion to define our existence?

There is NO evidence supporting God. Belief (with no evidence) is hardly proof. At one point, everyone on the planet thought the world was flat. They were all wrong.

The only CONCRETE evidence we have of God is our belief... billions of us, and documented scriptures of witnesses. I’ve said it before, I am not trying to prove God exists. I’m simply countering your argument; that you have no more proof that science explains our existence than I have that God exists. And I could throw you flat earth argument back at you… at one point a large group of people believed there was no God… they were wrong.

 

[Xaquin44]

Faith is not a term that is indigenous to religion.

Here are some of the definitions I pulled up:









Steven Weinberg wrote “The First Three Minutes” which describes the events of the first three minutes of the universe. His description of the 3 degree radiation background supports that our universe may have been born from a single event. It’s speculated, by many, that it was a big bang; but no one really knows because no one was there. From our limited point in the universe this radiation appears to be everywhere and they are unable to point to one central point. There are arguments on both sides that the universe is expanding/collapsing. Devoid of absolute witnessed fact (as you are demanding of God) you simply are reduced to believing which is right and putting your faith in that belief.



Agreed. I’m asking about life itself. What proof is there that there was some evolutionary process that bred life? If there was a big bang what came before it and how did it get there? If the universe is just a continuous process of expanding and contracting – a self-contained energy – how did it get there? You can’t just say “it always was just there” because that’s the argument Christians give for their God; He always was. How did all this stuff get here and what were the circumstances that bred life and led to man to create such things as religion to define our existence?

There is NO evidence supporting God. Belief (with no evidence) is hardly proof. At one point, everyone on the planet thought the world was flat. They were all wrong.

The only CONCRETE evidence we have of God is our belief... billions of us, and documented scriptures of witnesses. I’ve said it before, I am not trying to prove God exists. I’m simply countering your argument; that you have no more proof that science explains our existence than I have that God exists. And I could throw you flat earth argument back at you… at one point a large group of people believed there was no God… they were wrong.

First off, none of those definitions have nothing to do with science.

1: Science doesn't 'trust' unless it's proven and out of the relam of mere possibility.

2: Science doesn't blindly believe .... it disects until it's proven and therefore doesn't have to 'believe' it's just fact.

3: I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything

also, concerning some of your later points:

1: Evolution doesn't explain the birth of life .... I've already explained that. It's a completely different thing.

2: Belief is not concrete evidence. Not even by a long shot.

 

[PsyOps]

First off, none of those definitions have nothing to do with science.

Sure they do. If you believe life is a result of a spontaneous evolutionary process then you have put your faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing) in that explanation

1: Science doesn't 'trust' unless it's proven and out of the relam of mere possibility.

I can surmise by this that those in the scientific community don’t trust the big bang or the origin of life is a result of some evolutionary process since they haven’t been proven. Where does that leave us with deciding what to believe as explanations for our existence?

2: Science doesn't blindly believe .... it disects until it's proven and therefore doesn't have to 'believe' it's just fact.

I didn’t say it did. This insinuates that those that believe in a God blindly believe only because you don’t understand the premise of that belief; only because it’s not accompanied with some ambiguous math.

3: I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything.

It’s part of the discussion. :shrug:

also, concerning some of your later points:

1: Evolution doesn't explain the birth of life .... I've already explained that. It's a completely different thing.

Different than what? I thought that was one of the main premises for believing in a God. It explains why we are here; how life came to be. Science doesn’t do this.

2: Belief is not concrete evidence. Not even by a long shot.

Well, then we agree. There is no concrete evidence that there was ever a big bang or that evolution explains life or that there are even black holes or global warming.

 

[Xaquin44]

Sure they do. If you believe life is a result of a spontaneous evolutionary process then you have put your faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing) in that explanation

look, until you get it through your skull, that science is not faith, there is no point in arguing. If you're going to reassign definitions to words then there can't be any debate.

There is no trust or confidence, only fact or false. You may have confidence that you are right, but that's not good enough in the realm of science. That's the whole point.

Understand?

and p.s.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only what probably happened after life came about. So please stop saying evolution is fraudulent because it omits something that you think it should cover.

It's like saying The theory of relativity is wrong because it doesn't explain ice cream.

 

[PsyOps]

look, until you get it through your skull, that science is not faith, there is no point in arguing. If you're going to reassign definitions to words then there can't be any debate.

I see… because we disagree requires you to be disrespectful. No need to prove your argument that we came from apes by acting uncivilized.

There is no trust or confidence, only fact or false. You may have confidence that you are right, but that's not good enough in the realm of science. That's the whole point.

Understand?

Putting your confidence or trust in something does not require that you worship it. It just means that you believe that thing is true without concrete facts. There is no proof that my God is false. There is no proof that your science can define the origin of life. I’ve stated over and over that my belief in my God is based in faith and I can’t prove to you there is a God any more than you can prove to me that there are scientific explanations for certain phenomena that would tend to disprove any sort of God.

and p.s.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only what probably happened after life came about. So please stop saying evolution is fraudulent because it omits something that you think it should cover.

It's like saying The theory of relativity is wrong because it doesn't explain ice cream.

Perhaps you’d like to tell me how life came to be. Since the existence of God lacks this explanation what sort of science is able to answer it? I’ve always understood in these debates (science vs. God) that there was an evolutionary process that bred life. So what is it?

and p.s. You'd save yourself a lot of frustration if you didn't believe you are the determining factor for what people say. This is a discussion, not a exercise in who can frustrate whom. That's not what I'm trying to do here.

 

[Xaquin44]

I see… because we disagree requires you to be disrespectful. No need to prove your argument that we came from apes by acting uncivilized.

that isn't what evolution states ....

at least read up on the subject. By the way, nice job ignoring my argument and saying I said something I've never said (we came from apes).

Putting your confidence or trust in something does not require that you worship it. It just means that you believe that thing is true without concrete facts. There is no proof that my God is false. There is no proof that your science can define the origin of life. I’ve stated over and over that my belief in my God is based in faith and I can’t prove to you there is a God any more than you can prove to me that there are scientific explanations for certain phenomena that would tend to disprove any sort of God.

I've never claimed science can prove there is no god. I'm just saying that science =/= faith.

Perhaps you’d like to tell me how life came to be. Since the existence of God lacks this explanation what sort of science is able to answer it? I’ve always understood in these debates (science vs. God) that there was an evolutionary process that bred life. So what is it?

I can't =) same as you or anyone else on the planet.

If you've understood that evolution is responsible for the initial creation, you've misunderstood the argument.

and p.s. You'd save yourself a lot of frustration if you didn't believe you are the determining factor for what people say. This is a discussion, not a exercise in who can frustrate whom. That's not what I'm trying to do here.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

 

[PsyOps]

that isn't what evolution states ....

at least read up on the subject. By the way, nice job ignoring my argument and saying I said something I've never said (we came from apes).



I've never claimed science can prove there is no god. I'm just saying that science =/= faith.



I can't =) same as you or anyone else on the planet.

If you've understood that evolution is responsible for the initial creation, you've misunderstood the argument.

This whole discussion proves MY point. I haven't moved you and you haven't moved me. I haven't convinced you that God isn't fiction any more than you have convinced me that science is the end-all to our existence. The difference is I believe both are factual in explaining much of our universe. There are still a lot of questions I believe science will answer, but none of it will ever disprove the existence of God.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You wrote: "So please stop saying evolution is fraudulent because it omits something that you think it should cover."

First of all I never said evolution is fraudulent. I only said it does not provide an answer to life.

Secondly, it does no good to tell anyone to stop doing something just because you disagree.

Lastly, I'm not talking about Darwinism. In order for you to conclude that life was not a result of a creator then you have to conclude there was an evolutionary process that resulted in life. A process that was devoid of any intelligence; in other words, a spontaneous chaotic combustion of cosmic chemicals. Well, Life has an order to it; an intelligent process. It’s quite consistent and not chaotic. Its results are predictable which leads me to believe it didn’t occur as some random phenomenon through an evolutionary process. Now Darwinism is quite different. Once life was created it had a direction and a purpose that was driven, in an orderly way, by exact environmental conditions; conditions that just happen to be perfect for supporting such life. Hardly a result of some arbitrary chemical reactions. And another part of this is… the same science that can’t explain how life came to be is the same science that can’t explain God. Imagine that.

 

[Xaquin44]

You wrote: "So please stop saying evolution is fraudulent because it omits something that you think it should cover."

First of all I never said evolution is fraudulent. I only said it does not provide an answer to life.

and I'm saying that's because that's not what evolution concerns.

 

[PsyOps]

and I'm saying that's because that's not what evolution concerns.

Then you are stuck in a paradigm that the only definition of evolution is Darwinism. I would argue that it is not. Can I interpret this that you may be open to the fact that, considering science cannot explain our existence, that it may have been created by an intelligent being; what I would call God?

 

[Xaquin44]

Then you are stuck in a paradigm that the only definition of evolution is Darwinism. I would argue that it is not. Can I interpret this that you may be open to the fact that, considering science cannot explain our existence, that it may have been created by an intelligent being; what I would call God?

I've already said it -may- be god. No problem. It could also be aliens, time machine, or the last son of krypton for all I know.

Evolution does not concern itself with where life came from, only where it went and is currently going.

Creation and evolution are two different things.

Example: If I splice together a chicken and a goose to make a gooseken, the gooseken didn't evolve. It was created. If the gooseken changes over several years or whatever and becomes, through the passing of dominant genes, into a stronger or more adept gooseken, then it has evolved.

possibly into my dinner.

 

[PsyOps]

I've already said it -may- be god. No problem. It could also be aliens, time machine, or the last son of krypton for all I know.

Evolution does not concern itself with where life came from, only where it went and is currently going.

Creation and evolution are two different things.

Example: If I splice together a chicken and a goose to make a gooseken, the gooseken didn't evolve. It was created. If the gooseken changes over several years or whatever and becomes, through the passing of dominant genes, into a stronger or more adept gooseken, then it has evolved.

possibly into my dinner.

Okay, let's try again. If you don't believe that life was formed from a creator then you must believe that it evolved from a series of events. Has nothing to do with taking existing life forms and creating a new one. Has to do with... how did the the basic foundations for life come to be. What conditions allowed such circumstances to happen if these conditions were not created by an intelligent being? Devoid of a God it would be an evolutionary process. Chemicals mixing together, through the right circumstances and !POOF! life. If there is no creator then there must have been an evolutionary process that bred life. Not some gooseken. I am talking about the basic foundations of life.

 

[Xaquin44]

Okay, let's try again. If you don't believe that life was formed from a creator then you must believe that it evolved from a series of events. Has nothing to do with taking existing life forms and creating a new one. Has to do with... how did the the basic foundations for life come to be. What conditions allowed such circumstances to happen if these conditions were not created by an intelligent being? Devoid of a God it would be an evolutionary process. Chemicals mixing together, through the right circumstances and !POOF! life. If there is no creator then there must have been an evolutionary process that bred life. Not some gooseken. I am talking about the basic foundations of life.

ah #### it, I give up.

 

[PsyOps]

ah #### it, I give up.

You give up? What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

 

[This_person]

ah #### it, I give up.

Faith is belief that humans and mangos both evolved, if taken far enough back, from sponges. No evidence to support this belief, just a belief.

Faith is saying that there is an electro-chemical way that life came from lifelessness. No evidence to support this belief, it's just a belief.

Science is the manner in which one looks into the mechanism by which a sponge's offspring mutated into both mangos and humans; into the mechanisms by which acids could have miraculously bumped into one another and resulted in organic compounds that spontaneously began to reproduce and mutate. Faith is saying these untested, unproven theories are backed up by any science to date.

 

[PsyOps]

Faith is belief that humans and mangos both evolved, if taken far enough back, from sponges. No evidence to support this belief, just a belief.

Faith is saying that there is an electro-chemical way that life came from lifelessness. No evidence to support this belief, it's just a belief.

Science is the manner in which one looks into the mechanism by which a sponge's offspring mutated into both mangos and humans; into the mechanisms by which acids could have miraculously bumped into one another and resulted in organic compounds that spontaneously began to reproduce and mutate. Faith is saying these untested, unproven theories are backed up by any science to date.

And to take this a step further... faith is believing that matter (lifeless or not) itself was born from nothingness. No scientific data to substantiate this either.

And it's just as easy to imply that these elements always were just as one could argue that God always was.

 

[tommyjones]

And to take this a step further... faith is believing that matter (lifeless or not) itself was born from nothingness. No scientific data to substantiate this either.

And it's just as easy to imply that these elements always were just as one could argue that God always was.

saying we dont know but have a theory is different than faith.

 

[This_person]

saying we dont know but have a theory is different than faith.

Saying your theory is the only correct one is different how?

 

[tommyjones]

Saying your theory is the only correct one is different how?

that is not what science does. you should go look up the definition of theory, and check into the scientific method.....

 

[This_person]

that is not what science does. you should go look up the definition of theory, and check into the scientific method.....

I have repeatedly. And, I've repeatedly shown that abiogenesis does not fall into the scientific method, as it has not and can not be tested. Evolution from sponge to human, also, is not under the scientific method for the same reason.

Neither of these beliefs are any more credible than any religion out there for this very reason.