It's a simple question; Why not God or a Creator? Why are you an Athiest when the overwhelming evidence (for our existence) points to a Creator / Designer / God?
Strictly speaking in scientific way/terms and not in any doctrinal/philosophical terms, why do you not accept the existence of an Eternal Creator / God?
For instance, since it's an established, proven and an accepted scientific fact that life can only come from life, why then accept the opposite - spontaneous generation?
I don't get it.
BTW, to be clear:
I don't believe nor accept many of Christendom's doctrinal/philosophical teachings - such us:
hell or hellfire (no such place)
immortal soul/spirit (no such thing)
6000-year-old earth (evidence show 4b)
Jesus as God (he is the Son of God)
...
As a Christian, I accept and believe the Bible as the ONLY WRITTEN Word of / from God.
God has a personal name - known to us as Yehovah/Jehovah/Yahweh. He is Eternal/Uncreated.
Peace,
Eddiem3
- go easy, my first post -
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Eddiem: Welcome to the forum.
You mention "overwhelming evidence" for a creator/god. Can you provide an example?
You say it's "accepted scientific fact that life can only come from life". I disagree. Which scientists accept that? I think the origin of life is still very much an open debate.
if you don't believe in hell, eternal souls, or the divinity of god, in what sense are you a Christian?
I warn you that your statement about the authenticity of the Bible as the sole word of god is going to attract a lot of criticism here.
criticism is part of the deal and besides, how can one know if his stand is true if he can't take any criticism.
Life from life is an established fact. The opposite is not, unless if you redefine what life means. But life to me simply means - a living thing/creature/being with the ability to reproduce its kind. The ability to pass on / impart life.
I'm a Christian is a sense that I follow closely what the Bible teaches, what Christ taught.
@Eddiem3: Life from life is an established fact.
Sure. But that doesn't rule out life from non-life. And life from non-life does not require a redefinition of life.
"I'm a Christian is a sense that I follow closely what the Bible teaches, what Christ taught."
Do you think slavery is ok, and that slaves should obey their masters?
Do you think genocide is morally acceptable? How about ethnic cleansing? Do you think the sex trafficking of young virgin girls as the spoils of ethnic cleansing is morally ok? How about torturing a new born baby to death over 7 days is that ok?
All this things and much more besides the bible claims your deity either did or condoned and encouraged humans go do.
How can you think anything that barbaric and sadistic is worthy of worship?
@eddiem3 "Why not God creator."
1. Your question is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You are the one asserting that there is a god. A magical, omnipotent, flying, omnipresent, being that lives beyond time and space but cares about whether or not you jack off or who you have sex with. (Assuming we are speaking of the Abrahamic God and not one of the millions of other gods out there.) The question is "Why God the creator?"
"Why not God creator?" Is like asking, "Why not unicorns," or "Why not flying elephants." or "Why not magical earth crating pixies" or my new favorite, "Why not an invisible, non-corporal, omnipotent, prayer granting, flying teapot orbiting the moon? You are the one making the assertion of a God. You are the one that must prove your assertion. WELL.....;.... waiting...........
@ overwhelming evidence?
What overwhelming evidence? You think you have some evidence why not share?
@ It's a fact that life can only come from life,
No. That is neither accepted nor fact nor science. You need to familiarize yourself with a few theories of origin, or genesis of life.
A. Electric Spark: Lightning may have provided the spark needed for life to begin. Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, as was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiment reported in 1953, (LIFE DID NOT COME FROM LIFE)
B. Molecules of life met on clay: Cairns-Smith, University of Glasgow in Scotland, suggests that mineral crystals in clay could have arranged organic molecules into organized patterns. After a while, organic molecules took over this job and organized themselves. (LIFE DOES NOT COME FROM LIFE)
C. Life began at deep-sea vents: The deep-sea vent theory suggests that life may have begun at submarine hydro thermal vents spewing key hydrogen-rich molecules. (LIFE DID NOT COME FROM LIFE).
D: RNA World: RNA, which can store information like DNA, serve as an enzyme like proteins, and help create both DNA and proteins. Later DNA and proteins succeeded this "RNA world," because they are more efficient. RNA still exists and performs several functions in organisms, including acting as an on-off switch for some genes. The question still remains how RNA got here in the first place. And while some scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened. Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA. (NO PREVIOUS LIFE REQUIRED) YOU ARE QUITE OBVIOUSLY WRONG!
@ "I don't believe nor accept many of Christendom's doctrinal/philosophical teachings."
Congratulations, you are not a total idiot. Now all we have to do is bring you up to date on biology, science, evolution, cosmology, and a few other scientific advancements we have made since the Dark Ages and the rein of the Christian faith.
@ The bible is the written word of God.
If your god wrote a book to convince people of his existence he is a complete moron. The Bible is not evidence of any kind of God. First, prove that your God wrote it without using it as evidence. God wrote the bible because the Bible says he wrote the bible is a circular piece of BS. It is a fallacy of logic. There are 30,000 different Christian faiths, Islam with its 20 to 30 faiths, and a whole bunch of offshoots all because your God could not write clear enough for any of his followers to understand what the hell he had written. Your Jesus cast demons out of people instead of sharing the biomedical theory of germs and viruses with us. You really think that is evidence for an omnipotent God. You think you are the sole interpreter of the Bible? So did Joseph Smith. Why not just start your own religion. That's what other people have done who believe as you believe.
@ Eddiem
"I'm a Christian is a sense that I follow closely what the Bible teaches, what Christ taught."
Ok.leaving aside for one moment that no contemporary evidence exits for this "christ" you claim to follow.
What happens when "Christs" teachings are contradicted by writings in the same book? e.g Jesus specifically instructed the disciples to bypass the gentiles and only preach to the Jews. (Matt 15:24 & 10:5) Yet Paul totally disregarded that command and went directly to the gentiles , changed the Law again in contravention of Jesus' spoken word, arguing with 'Peter' "James" and the rest of the mother church in Jerusalem?.
How do you deal with the acknowledged hundred of edits to this "holy word" that were made to satisfy later sensibilities? You are aware that "paul" for instance only 6 of those epistles are by the same hand, 4 arguably not and the rest fakes to romanize the whole message?
That two whole chapters were allegedly added to Matthew to bolster the mistranslated Isiah prophecies and to contradict the earliest christian sects who believed that this Jesus had a very ordinary parentage?
Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas in the canon? Who decided that 'eye witness ' account is not true and accurate and should be excluded?
What of the other gospels that did not 'make the cut' under Roman rule of the church?
To make the claim that this tawdry book is the inspiration or even "the direct word of god" you need to address these contradictions.
@Old man shouts ...
As a serious Bible researcher and student, I can easily answer your question but it will derail the thread. Maybe I can open another thread dealing with the subject.
@ Eddiem
You made the claim in your OP. I answered it. If you want a separate thread then bring it on sunshine.
@eddiem3
As is not possible for something to come from nothing, the only conclusion is that there was no creator.
@eddiem3: As is not possible for something to come from nothing, the only conclusion is that there was no creator.
Before you can assert that it is not possible something can not come from nothing you have to be able to examine nothing. We have no examples of nothing. There is only something. What is this nothing you are talking about? Making up nothing is the same thing as making up a God. You do not get to talk about it unless you can prove it is there. NO ONE KNOWS HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN. You do not get to insert your GOD without proof.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Hi Cognostic, thanks for the post.
You raised several points that seem to provide an answer to age-old question - Origin of Life. But unfortunately none of the above are proven scientific facts but just theories and assumptions.
A) Uri / Miller experiment - is just that an experiment, it neither produced or created life from non-life. It produced deadly chemicals nonetheless.
B. Molecules of life met on clay: - it's not life but a suggestion that "...mineral crystals in clay could have arranged organic molecules into organized patterns."
C. Life began at deep-sea vents: "...suggests that life may have begun at ..." - a suggestion
D: RNA World: - it's not life but an ingredient for life - and "scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened. Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA." In other words, it's a coulda woulda...- a suggestion.
Give me one example of life coming from non-living matter. If you can, then you solved the problem of decay and death.
Life can only come from life, on the other hand, can be proven a billion times over.
@eddiem3
"Life can only come from life, on the other hand, can be proven a billion times over."
That is not a falsifiable statement, thus can never be proven.
@Sapporo
There's that philosophical word - Falsifiable. To me, this word has been used so many as a criterion or even as a weapon to shut up any discussion.
Just because something is "not falsifiable" does it also mean it's not a fact?
@eddiem3
You said that "Life can only come from life, on the other hand, can be proven a billion times over."
It would only take a single instance to demonstrate a billion observations false. Ergo, the billion observations would not "prove" that "life can only come from life" a billion times over. Therefore, it is not possible to falsify your statement that "Life can only come from life, on the other hand, can be proven a billion times over.".
It's not philosophical. It's a scientific term. Falsifiability is necessary for valid experimentation. This is undisputed.
@eddiem3 "ut unfortunately none of the above are proven scientific facts but just theories and assumptions." (YOU ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY THAT IT SHOULD BE EMBARRASSING)
Theories are not "assumptions." You are making an "Equivocation Fallacy" as you use the common term "Theory" in place of the scientific term "Theory." Gravity is a theory, the germ theory of disease is a theory. Atomic Theory is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory. Evolution is a theory. And all these theories are based on the best and most observable facts available. Unlike the God "HYPOTHESIS" which is not a theory but only a guess with no evidence backing it at all. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
@A) Uri / Miller experiment - is just that an experiment, it neither produced or created life from non-life. It produced deadly chemicals nonetheless.
A useless assertion. This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at The Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.[18]
K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 10, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture.[20]
More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada, one of Miller's graduate students, and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California, San Diego were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
Give me one item of evidence that supports the God hypothesis and we will call it even. Anything at all that is objective, measurable, verifiable and repeatable.
Nobody knows exactly how life began. You do not get to 'ASSERT' therefore god. The chemicals for life have been extracted from non-living material, a valuable step on our way to understanding life. This is the best we have so far. You do not get to INVENT A GOD and insert it into a lack of knowledge. This is the fallacy of the "GOD OF THE GAPS."
We do not know the genesis of life. We do not know the origin of the universe. We know for a fact that making up a magical being to answer questions about which we know very little is a really dumb thing to do. We have been doing it for 10,000 years and it's about time we stop.
@(YOU ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY THAT IT SHOULD BE EMBARRASSING)
Ha! To the contrary, I'm in sync with reality. In fact, from Miller to the present - no one has produced/created life from the chemical elements you've listed. In addition, are you comparing the experiments conducted back in the Miller/Uri days to the conditions of the earth millions or even billions of years ago - in order to produce "life"? If so, was it a closed system then? And what or who corresponds to the controlling agents - Miller/Uri experiment, et al - on earth in order to manipulate the system to produce the chemical elements.
If Miller/Uri didn't remove the spark at the exact moment, what do you think will happen to the chemical elements they produced?
care to gander?
Hint:
"Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form."
@Give me one item of evidence that supports the God hypothesis and we will call it even. Anything at all that is objective, measurable, verifiable and repeatable.
I can answer your question if you can answer this simple question:
Remove intelligence from the (Miller/Uri/Bada) experiment, will chance alone produce the chemical elements listed?
@Nobody knows exactly how life began.
Sure - exactly - as in the exact mechanics for creating life, that knowledge is beyond the human comprehension and intellect. But the foundation is there for us to understand it.
Life can only come from pre-existing life.
eddiem3,
Come on! Research into the origin of life on earth is just getting underway! Even at this early stage a lot has been learned! By what crystal ball do you conclude that in the next 100 years an answer won't be found? How about the next 1000 years? You must have a really, really good crystal ball!
In fact, you have blundered into a common error of reasoning:
Appeal to Ignorance: The fallacy of claiming that if the opposition can't prove its case then your case is true by default.
@eddiem3
It would be helpful if you define what you mean by "life". You seem to have an arbitrary black-and-white understanding.
@Sapporo
Like I said, life to me is a living thing, creature, being with the ability to impart/produce life. It's as you said - black and white.
Although some consider fire as a living thing, it's not but metaphorically speaking it is.
How do you define life?
I don't see "life" as being something with an absolute definition. The ability of proteins to replicate would be one of the simpler forms of life. It is well-known that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds in nature. And it should not be surprising that things that are good at replicating are good at replicating. For you to say that life can only come from life is nonsensical.
@eddiem: Welcome!
God is not necessary to explain anything! Also, believers personal testimonies are extremely boring.
Can you prove how the life began if not for a god? or the universe? Or how anything came in to existence?
@ Man in search o...
Can you prove how the life
The claim is "god did it" .
First define your god, then provide evidence for it.
@Man in search Re: "Can you prove how the life began if not for a god? or the universe? Or how anything came in to existence?"
Proof?.... Nope. None at all. Fact is, NOBODY knows for certain how life or the universe began. Scientists are working on it, though. Be patient. Meanwhile, I DO happen to have a personal theory if you would like to hear it.
So, there are these really gi-normous cosmic bunnies (way too big to be detected by current technology) that are constantly mating and producing all the stars and galaxies we see. And they have been doing this for billions of years, hence the reason for the trillions of stars/galaxies. And although they give birth to stars and galaxies, their poopie comes out as planets. (Sorta like Easter eggs, but more spherical than an egg, obviously.) And it just so happens that Earth was pooped out at just the right distance from the Sun to allow all that nutrient-rich organic poopie to form life as we now know it. Is that cool, or what? We should all be giving praise and thanks to the one true Cosmic Bunny that pooped us into existence. ALL PRAISE THE COSMIC BUNNY!!!
Now, please prove to me the glorious Cosmic Bunny does not exist.
@ TM
All Hail the blessed Bunny Poop!
ALL HAIL the cosmic bunnies...
(*hypnotized eyes*)(*raising fist repeatedly*)....do the poop....do the poop....do the poop...
"Now, please prove to me the glorious Cosmic Bunny does not exist."
i do know it exist...just have faith on the pooping and it'll give you your own planet (obviously)
If only life can come from life, then life must be eternal.
If something cannot come from nothing, then something must be eternal.
In truth, scientists do not believe that "life can only come from life". The exact origins of life has not yet been resolved. Such investigations are not helped by being vague about what is meant by "life". To a certain extent, that is a philosophical matter that doesn't really get in the way of scientific investigations into the development of "life" - science describes and explains what is rather than what ought to be.
Not only is there no evidence of a creator god, there is no need for one when describing nature.
Thank you for your reply
"If something cannot come from nothing, then something must be eternal." Yes, i agree with this statement. And that eternal thing is god/higher power or whatever you wish to call it.
"Not only is there no evidence of a creator god, there is no need for one when describing nature." Personally, i disagree with this statement because whether you want to call it god or something else there has to have been something that created everything, everything that moves so precise that there is no way it could have been by chance. How does someone explain the entire universe and everything in it and around it? Simply saying you have yet to see evidence or science has does not mean there is no creator or god. Which ultimately goes back to something can't from nothing.
"Which ultimately goes back to something can't from nothing."
So where did your god come from?
Pages