There is no possible naturalistic explanation for the origin of matter/energy which does not contravene the laws of nature, and there is no possible, naturalistic explanation for the origin of life anywhere in the universe which does not contravene the laws of nature (according to laws of nature, matter/energy which are finite cannot simply arise of their own accord from nothing. According to the Law of Biogenesis life cannot arise spontaneously from inert matter. According to information theory, the information within the universe which governs life etc. could not have simply arisen from matter. Information can only originate from an intelligent source).
Beliefs such as the ‘Big Bang’ theory, the spontaneous generation of life and evolution, all defy natural law. But because they are naturalistic events, they are bound by natural laws and cannot possibly contravene them. How can it be logical to assume that they could?
2007-01-01 07:10:55 · 35 answers · asked by A.M.D.G 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
eldad9 ..... So I misrepresented the laws of nature, did I? Well you tell me exactly what the Law of Biogenesis does mean? You tell me how the information for first life can arise of it's own accord by naturalistic means?
In fact, I challenge you to show me, using the scientific method of a repeatable experiment in any laboratory you choose, with any equipment you choose, even with any contrived arrangement of chemicals, gases, energy sources you choose, how you can produce just one living cell from inert matter, and I will give you a million pounds. I don't actually have a million pounds, but I am absolutely certain you will not be claiming it, even if you spend the rest of your life trying.
P.S. I will even allow you to employ the very best scientific brains to help you. Perhaps the atheist's hero Richard Dawkins (who apparently is an expert on how miracles can be achieved by naturalistic means can assist you. It should be a doddle for him.
2007-01-01 07:48:06 · update #1
car b ..... the above applies to you also, and the same offer of one million pounds, especially as you seem to 'know' how life originated naturally.
2007-01-01 08:09:56 · update #2
Oh! by the way, computers were invented by technological and practical science, not by the theoretical so-called scientists that believe in naturalistic miracles.
2007-01-01 08:15:45 · update #3
HarryTiko ..... want a million pounds? the same offer above applies to you.
You think the Law of Biogenesis is not fixed, in that case don't expect anyone to believe any scientific explanation for anything that is claimed to be based on scientific law. Talk about wanting to have your cake a and eat it. To claim the Miller experiments got anywhere near to creating life, is about as sensible as claiming that, finding a natural source of ink, shows that the 'Complete Works of Shakespeare' could have written themselves.
2007-01-01 08:30:11 · update #4
asanewt ....... I can assure you, I do applaud good science, That is why I am defending the Laws of Science from those who maintain they didn't apply, when it comes to naturalistic explanations of origins. It's the bad science I am questioning. By all means, let's have an origins debate based on good science.
2007-01-01 08:38:36 · update #5
novangeli... .. .the pedantic argument about the law of biogenesis meaning 'does not,' rather than 'can not,' is a quite ridiculous device to try to manipulate a law which you find inconvenient to your beliefs. 'Does not' means IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, so stop pretending that this is something different from 'can not.' If something doesn't happen, why are you saying it did happen?
And I am afraid you are wrong to say information has been created by natural selection, all natural selection does is to select from the existing gene pool. In any case, where is the natural selection amongst the non-living substances in the so-called primordial soup? I think you need to go back to science class, only this time check that your teacher is objective, and does not twist the facts to suit their own philosophical beliefs.
2007-01-02 08:31:46 · update #6
Logic is thrown out of the window by atheists when it suits them. For example, do you know that most of the atheists on this forum believe that the Big Bang originated out of nothing ? Not only does that flout all the physical laws of the universe, but it requires a great magic trick that is known only to atheists. When that happens they quote tensor laws and superstring theory to show how other dimensions have transferred energy for the Big Bang.
They would also like you to believe that science and atheism are the same, if they can fool you into believing that.
2007-01-01 07:16:19 · answer #1 · answered by defOf 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
One of your mistakes here is your failure to know that so-called scientific "laws" (and "natural law") are not fixed forever. You should simply consider them to be the best available explanation at this time in the history of knowledge.
The “law of biogenesis” will be adjusted (just as Newton's "law of gravity" has been adjusted) or abandoned when and if the field of abiogenesis discovers the way in which life evolves from non-life. There is currently no better indication than the Miller-Urey experiment, which strongly suggests that life evolved naturally from the elements and conditions of early Earth. Unlike intelligent design, the MU experiment is reasonable and replicable.
Nevertheless, even if we accept your mistaken version of reality, there is still a problem: if life did not arise through nature, then how did life come to be? If you suggest that it was intelligently designed, then, using your own logic, we need to explain how this intelligence came to be? If god, then who/what created this god?
I hope this helps you to stop spreading misinformation.
2007-01-01 08:06:08 · answer #2 · answered by HarryTikos 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you know anything at all about science, the big bang, evolution, well anything?
Atheists do not need to believe in the big bang, only that whatever caused the formation of the universe was not supernatural.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is a proven scientific theory, with thousands of pieces of evidence. Does this rule out the possibility of a creator? No. Does this rule out any religion man has created? I'm sorry, but yes.
Atheists are generally very intelligent, but I believe Agnosticism to be the only logical choice.
2007-01-01 07:16:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, more irrational than your gibberish.
Just because you don't know where the mass-energy of the universe came from, doesn't mean any natural law was broken.
The law of biogenesis states that living things do not, not cannot, arise from non-living matter. Based on the the universal genetic code, there is empirical evidence that life spontaneously arose at least once in hundreds of million years within the volume of the oceans.
Your statement regarding information is contrary to fact. Information gain by natural selection has been demonstrated.
Your beliefs led you to write serious mistatements regarding natural law. I suggest you give them up or keep them to yourself.
2007-01-01 11:46:37 · answer #4 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The irrationality of atheism does not lie in the argument of Creation versus Evolution but at a much more basic level.
Before you can prove that there is no God you have to know absolutely everything about absolutely everything.....otherwise God may be there. (He also may well be in areas where you think you DO know, but havenot seen all the picture. It is therefore both an arrogant and irrational view.
BUT. You cannot prove, either, that there IS a God. Think it through:- if there is a GOd He has, by defintion, to be far beyond human understanding.
If you could PROVE God's existence, He would be within that understanding, therefore there would be no God!
However, whilst you cannot say of God's existence "It is certain", you can say "I am certain"
The greatest evidence for the existence of God is that He has worked in youir life.
(It is rather like love. You cannot PROVE that you love your wife, or that she loves you....but you CAN KNOW.
PS
Please don't stick that dollar sign in the middle of ateist. The argument for faith is strong enough without that.
2007-01-01 07:56:38 · answer #5 · answered by alan h 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are right. I doubt there is much explanation for that, other than people saying, "Well, where did God originate from?" Most naturalistic origin believers tend to switch the argument rather than address the real issue. Christians claim that God created time and is not bound by our concept of now and later and beginning and end. If you believe everything operates by laws of nature, then those are major problems.
2007-01-01 07:17:43 · answer #6 · answered by The GMC 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
wow if ever their were a question to destroy its own purpose
while you sit at your computer created by scientific minds who im 97% sure are supporters of the evolution theory you attempt to dominate less intelligent readers with your interpretation of scientific research when in actual fact you know deep down, the laws of science cannot correlate with creationism
"according to the laws of nature " - sorry do you know this "guy" i didn't realize you were that connected inert matter can form life when provided with energy and optimum environment our most likely explanation is that this energy came from the intense lightning storms which swept the earth in its infant years .
the fact is we are not as fully informed as you Christians are on our origin however when you consider someone shoved a book in your hand and told you the earth was created in 7 days ,jesus loves you ,sin=hell vs an enormous body of evidence including
fossils, bones of our ancestors dna the list could go on
but blast
us atheists haven't got a leg to stand on
if only we had a man that could hear voices in his head
we could prove you wrong
2007-01-01 07:50:38 · answer #7 · answered by car b 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
rofl. As opposed to what?
Believing in an omnipotent, oniscient god that will take you to bask in glory when you go to heaven and, if you don't do what he says (though he gives you the choice to choose) he'll toss you into hell where you'll burn for all eternity while you still say he loves you?
Oh but I'm not done yet. In your book he murders children, and even kills his own son. He turns water into wine, a sea parts, a stick turns into a snake, and a man rises from the dead after three days.
And you call Atheists irrational? Honestly, think that through a little. Your little bible reads like the greatest fantasy story ever very badly written.
No Atheism isn't irrational. In fact, Christianity is.
2007-01-01 07:19:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I think atheism is a plausible conclusion, based on what we know - one can argue against something existing, unless given proof that it does exist. Take a pink elephant, for instance - is it possible, somewhere out there, that a pink elephant does exist? Yes. However, I have never encountered one, nor have I found any evidence online or through other people that one exists. So, by default, I'm probably going to lean towards believing they don't exist.
-
(While I personally am not atheist, I don't think their line of reasoning is that far-fetched. At very, least, it's no more far-fetched than Christianity.)
2007-01-01 07:18:38 · answer #9 · answered by Lunarsight 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Atheism and science are two separate things.
Atheism is irrational, in my opinion, but science is necessary to understand the world, even in a theistic setting.
Even believers in God who are rational, must accept that the universe is far older than six thousand years and some form of evolution, however you argue it, does occur. This has nothing to do with atheism.
Science and religion are two paths to knowledge. Science is man's attempt to explain the universe. This is essential. So is God's revelation to mankind. They are two wings of one bird.
2007-01-01 07:16:55 · answer #10 · answered by darth_maul_8065 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋