Science for a pre-sin world

[MrDeets]

You don't step outside of it, Deets. No logical step ever defined what a person was like. If that person is "from everlasting to everlasting" he doesn't need a designer. "The Christian answer to the metaphysical problem Sartre arrived at was that there is not a problem; God was already there." --Dr. Schaeffer, HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT.

Schaeffer or Christianity did not put it there as an extension of someone's logical breakthrough. That's not what the source reveals about God. He already was there, and among other things he has done, he made the earth to enjoy fellowship with mankind. He called them his children. He gives many things to enjoy, to "gladden the hearts of man" Acts 17, but He doesn't want things to be enjoyed while He is neglected. Paul quoted a Greek poet who said it this way: "In Him (God), we live and move and have our being." Perhaps the poet had realized the place is a pretty bleak prospect if that's not true.

Just saying that "He's eternal" doesn't make it sound less ludicrous. When a person says in the same breath that 'everything ever has to have a designer, except the designer', it makes zero sense. 1 Cor 1:27 and 1 Cor 1:18 I guess. :idunno:


*For the record, I'm honestly trying not to be rude. I really just don't get it. I hope I don't come across as a patronizing a hole. That is not my intention.

 

[MrDeets]

You are not being logical.
You are unable to think of anything that has begun, that doesn't have a cause. Yet, you are seemingly willing to believe that nothing caused everything.

I am 100% okay not knowing everything. I have not yet made the claim that "nothing caused everything", nor will I. I don't understand quantum physics, nor will I ever. I'd like to point you to the quote in my sig...

 

[6days]

Just saying that "He's eternal" doesn't make it sound less ludicrous. When a person says in the same breath that 'everything ever has to have a designer, except the designer', it makes zero sense. 1 Cor 1:27 and 1 Cor 1:18 I guess. :idunno:


*For the record, I'm honestly trying not to be rude. I really just don't get it. I hope I don't come across as a patronizing a hole. That is not my intention.

And I think you are not being logical, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise.
I think you have 2 choices of believing nothing caused everything... or something uncaused, which has always existed caused everything.

 

[6days]

I am 100% okay not knowing everything. I have not yet made the claim that "nothing caused everything", nor will I. I don't understand quantum physics, nor will I ever. I'd like to point you to the quote in my sig...

Even if you use a quantum fluctuation to try and explain everything, you still have to believe that an immense energy force existed eternally.

 

[MrDeets]

And I think you are not being logical, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise.
I think you have 2 choices of believing nothing caused everything... or something uncaused, which has always existed caused everything.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't made any claims in this thread that require convincing.

There is a 3rd option, by the way- "I/We don't know". The "yet" may or may not apply. That option seems to be the most honest, IMO.

Even if you use a quantum fluctuation to try and explain everything, you still have to believe that an immense energy force existed eternally.

Maybe that's true. I'm not worried about it. Honestly.

 

[6days]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't made any claims in this thread that require convincing.

There is a 3rd option, by the way- "I/We don't know". The "yet" may or may not apply. That option seems to be the most honest, IMO.

Of course as an atheist you don't know..... but there still is only the two choices:
1. Nothing caused everything.
2. Something which existed eternally caused everything.
Logic from everything we know tells us that choice #2 is correct.

Mr Deets..... Are you willing to consider that there is an omnipotent, omniscient Being, who caused everything?

 

[Nick M]

He's asking about before Adam sinned.

Yeah, and? Where does the Bible say those things?

 

[Nick M]

:e4e: Nick!

It depends on the situation. I think there are logical occurrences, and random accidents. IF that's what you're asking.

Is a Boeing 777 the result of logic or random accidents?

 

[MrDeets]

Of course as an atheist you don't know..... but there still is only the two choices:
1. Nothing caused everything.
2. Something which existed eternally caused everything.
Logic from everything we know tells us that choice #2 is correct.

#1 isn't quite what physicists think happened, but I'll concede the two points on the idea that its close enough.

Mr Deets..... Are you willing to consider that there is an omnipotent, omniscient Being, who caused everything?

Given sufficient evidence, I'd be willing to believe in a creator deity/being again, but I highly doubt I'd accept the literal, YEC position ever again.

 

[MrDeets]

Is a Boeing 777 the result of logic or random accidents?

Not a fair analogy. But I'll answer anyway. It's a result of (gasp) logic/design/intent, etc...

Spare me the "tornado through a junkyard" analogy.

 

[Interplanner]

#1 isn't quite what physicists think happened, but I'll concede the two points on the idea that its close enough.



Given sufficient evidence, I'd be willing to believe in a creator deity/being again, but I highly doubt I'd accept the literal, YEC position ever again.

Maybe instead of waiting on sufficient evidence, you might decide how God is going to be defined. I'm sure you know Dawkins' outburst while trying to respond to the level design seen in DNA.

 

[MrDeets]

Maybe instead of waiting on sufficient evidence, you might decide how God is going to be defined. I'm sure you know Dawkins' outburst while trying to respond to the level design seen in DNA.

LOL, I'm familiar. :chuckle:

When thinking about how to define God, all I can do is revert to my own desires/needs/etc which I think would be unfair or too "small minded". In working the steps of AA, I had to "define" what God or my higher power would be or how it would behave. I was surprised at how human it was. That being said, I think IF God were to show up here on Earth, Believers of all sorts would be just as surprised as atheists by Its personality/composition/origin. I'm well aware we disagree on that.

 

[Stripe]

When do you estimate the Step Pyramid in Egypt was constructed?

Is it your plan to derail every thread with nonsense?

 

[Jose Fly]

Even if you use a quantum fluctuation to try and explain everything, you still have to believe that an immense energy force existed eternally.

Only in the sense that time itself didn't exist until that fluctuation occurred. IOW, there was no "before the big bang".

 

[Stripe]

Spare me the "tornado through a junkyard" analogy.

Why?

It is more realistic to imagine a tornado in a junkyard churning out a Boeing 777 than it is to believe the simplest living organism arose by pure chance.

 

[MrDeets]

First off, HOWDY. :e4e:

Why?

Because it's a played out comparison. I could try to explain to you how it's a misrepresentation of what current science thinks about evolution, to which you'd reply 'nuh-uh, it's a perfect representation', and so on(even though I've never seen you say nuh-uh, it'd be something like that. ).

It is more realistic to imagine a tornado in a junkyard churning out a Boeing 777 than it is to believe the simplest living organism arose by pure chance.

For you and many others, it may seem that way. For me, it makes more sense that guys in lab coats who have dedicated their life to very specific area of study would have a better idea of the story of our planet and life's origins than(I do not mean this sarcastically) guys who spent a lifetime in the desert herding goats.

 

[Stripe]

First off, HOWDY.

:e4e:

Because it's a played out comparison. I could try to explain to you how it's a misrepresentation of what current science thinks about evolution, to which you'd reply 'nuh-uh, it's a perfect representation', and so on(even though I've never seen you say nuh-uh, it'd be something like that. ).

I would point out that the standard evolutionary position is to claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. However, I'm not interested in a proxy discussion. The challenge is a valid one.

For you and many others, it may seem that way. For me, it makes more sense that guys in lab coats who have dedicated their life to very specific area of study would have a better idea of the story of our planet and life's origins than(I do not mean this sarcastically) guys who spent a lifetime in the desert herding goats.

What if the guys in the lab coats declare the glory of God?

 

[MrDeets]

I would point out that the standard evolutionary position is to claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

I'm aware they make that claim. I think IF abiogenisis could be proven beyond doubt, they'd be happy to claim it. As of yet, to the majority of the scientific community it is only 'the most likely option', which, I assume is why the draw the line of separation.

However, I'm not interested in a proxy discussion. The challenge is a valid one.

lol. I know you think it is.

What if the guys in the lab coats declare the glory of God?

If even a good portion of them began to do such, due to new evidence, I would absolutely rethink my position. Without doubt. However, IF indeed they do "find God", I really doubt that it would be Yahweh as presented in the Bible.

 

[MrDeets]

***For the record, I typed that out several times including separate mentions for the earth, abiogenesis, and evolution, but I was having a hard time typing it in a way that made sense. So I shortened it to just evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm aware they make that claim. I think IF abiogenisis could be proven beyond doubt, they'd be happy to claim it. As of yet, to the majority of the scientific community it is only 'the most likely option', which, I assume is why the draw the line of separation.

They are separate because no matter how the first self-replicators came to be on earth (chemistry, aliens, gods, etc.), evolutionary theory still explains the subsequent history of life.

I know creationists like to pretend that the origin of the first life remaining an unsolved mystery is a blow against evolution, but that's mainly because of 1) their ignorance of science, and 2) their desperation to throw rocks at evolution.