sschlichter

you know. I never really appreciated the difference between an agnostic and an atheist (experientially, that is) but I have found both your's and George's views to be very honest and compelling.

I think the last line of George's post was a pivotal one.

It is at this point that I have found there to be a God. I can vaguely remember my prior mindset but my view changed from that point forward. I later found that the Bible concurs in that God's nature and attributes are evident to us and it is our alienation that keeps us from seeing him. This also, I can concur with because where you see cells as an end and look for comets and other reasons how they got here, I see cells as a means and praise God for revealing himself in them. so, I am ruined for agnosticism. I am no longer capable of it.

~Steve

elevator

First of all; you must have ignored George Hathaway's last post. He there lists hypotheses such as "RNA World first" or "Intra-Mineral origin".

In regards to an RNA world we can read the following from Wikipedia (Cell (Biology) - Origin of Cells)
I don't have access to the actual scientific reports, so I am not going to testify to its accuracy (or even claim that it is accurate), but the point of all this is to illustrate that science has several hypotheses as to how we got from molecules such as water, ammonia and hydrogen to more complex organic compounds like amino acids and proteins and finally to the first protocells. To claim that the scientific explanation of this is that it "happened by chance" is misunderstanding and misrepresenting the process.

Talkorigins have a FAQ on abiogenesis and may be able to provide more references and sources on the subject than I can: Abiogenesis FAQs

sschlichter

I agree. it is beyond me.

ohmi

Very interesting arguments that debunk some of the 'creationist' myths , but like evolution itself, the proof of feasibility is challenged in the transition between viable stages , it may or may not be possible to demonstrate enough 'freak' simple-enough transitions [with thus low-enough probability] to some day bring down the figures to plausible levels...

That is a future possibility [but even so I do not see what it would prove about God either way , since it would simply move creation of life back to the creation of matter] . But more interesting to me now is the passion and motivation on both sides of the debate [and how it affects the perception of 'truth'], the connection being that the spirit is what generates motivation.

God is described as 'supernatural' by current measures of physical knowledge but obviously that can change [since Physics advances] , but one problem wich some imagine is that the supernatural [transscendental] to them semmingly could not possibly control the physical ...

The counter-example of an understandable way that this could conceivably happen is to consider the relationship of the computer programmer to his virtual reality characters in a created virtual reality program... there is complete control and yet also a possible illusion of freedom [independence] in the virtual characters' behaviours ... the point being then that the realities of the characters and of the programmer are separate entirely , yet control is complete ... also the characters only get as much knowledge of the programmer as they are allowed ...

The analogy is not so far-fetched either, once one realises that Physics is pursuing explanation of the creation of our universe from outside, from collision of M-branes of other universes which may have entirely different Physics to ours

Another boundary of Physics, at the 'edge' of creation , is crumbling and the supernatural being addressed as natural ... the problems largely exist in the words we use [evolved, ad hoc, pointers to conceptions in past physics]

perfectidius

To "create everything OUT OF nothing" grammatically assumes that the notiong contains everything. In which case, why do we need God? Why can the nothing not create everything?

Or perhaps everything existed in some form forever, as I think. Insofar as their are superhuman beings, they must necessarily be part of the all, and the all must necessarily have always existed, for how can something not exist and then exist?

Science has given us many early attempts to understand this. The religions, which presumed to give us descriptions of how it happened, are no longer recognized as "literally" true.

Daniel

George S

The One True Miracle is the one that requires no God at all. That Miracle caused the Universe. Or God.

Change started to happen and the rest, as they say, is history.

perfectidius

I do not know what you mean by "miracle." Since miracle seems to denote "unnatural" or "supernatural," but then you imply that the creation of the supernatural itself would be a miracle, than what is a miracle?

Assuming that change "started" at one point of time. Why is that a miracle? why not natural? Why not in the nature of reality? And insofar as change always existed, and things were always changing, how is that a miracle, and not simply the nature of the world, life, and everything?

elevator

I am not going to pretend to understand M-theory or the underlying science and mathematics (therefore correct me if I am wrong), but I do understand some of its implications (NOVA had a very basic look at the theory in its show The Elegant Universe). One of its implications is that the entire multidimensional reality may indeed be eternal (i.e. without the need for a creation event) and that universes such as the one we live in is just the result of a multidimensional anomaly or accidental interaction (collision perhaps?) between membranes and also introduces the concept of parallel universes. All of these imply that the universe is just a massive eternal multidimensional blob of energy, entirely naturalistic and which collectively has no interest or awareness of the contents within it. Maybe that is what God really is? Kind of like the Hindu concept of Brahman?

What I want to illustrate is that even for the ultimate reality; what Steve and ohmi believes to be God; we do in fact have multiple possible (as of yet equally unintelligible) options.

sschlichter

yes, many invisible green dragons to choose from. It has always been the case.

Simpler people used to remove God by carving one out of wood and worshipping it instead. The notion that now we do not need God because we can explain our way to the formation of amino acids in a test tube is the same thing. I feel your need for 'more attractive possibilities' is symtomatic of this same tendency. It is a denial of what is obvious to all.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

sschlichter

we all know that is impossible right?