Since our beginnings we have answered a lot of questions about events that were originally attributed to God. Lightning and thunder, earthquakes, volcanos,the plague and many other events have been identified as natural events with no connection to God.

But the one thing we cannot do ourselves is create life. As far as I know, no scientist or doctor has been able to turn a bowl of the components of living matter into even a one celled living creature So maybe that is the one thing we still need a God to explain.

I'm surprised that none of the posts I have read in the numerous threads on the subject of God have mentioned this.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I do believe abiogenesis HAS been discussed.

1 If god is truly omni everything then god is not knowable by man who is finite.

2 If god is finite then man can, if we live long enough surpass god.

For the first If god is all then defining him is the height of argent's because

it is beyond human understanding.

for the second It is in the nature of man to grow and learn with out limit.

As each limit accrue's man learns until he overcomes all obstetrical's.

to learn and overcome is the vary nature of man.

Any finite knowable god man will surpass.

So it is either useless to speculate on the unknowable or silly worship

something no better than man.

---

We don't know, in detail, the circumstances that led to the origin of life on this planet, so it's not really surprising that we haven't happened to have stumbled onto the correct combination of factors, by trial and error, or educated guessing yet.
It seems to me that the more perplexing problem for the pure materialists is explaining how it happens that there is something, rather than nothing. Problem: The universe exists!

Indeed, the fact that we are here in effect proves that Someone did Something for us to be here.

Simply walk backwards in time...

Indeed, the fact that we are here in effect proves that Someone did Something for us to be here.

Simply walk backwards in time...

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

I.D. Have you no intelligence, find your own quotes.

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

Most of what I wrote is merely a brief recounting of what astrophysics has to say on the matter. The evidence supporting it is widely available from a multitude of sources. It is considered part of general scientific knowledge.
What remains is a question, not a claim of proof of any sort. If you object to any implied interpretation of scientific observations, evidence, or theory, on my part, please offer a specific critique, which we can then discuss.

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

I.D. Have you no intelligence, find your own quotes.

Why? Yours worked just fine.

The usual scientific interpretation of the origin of the material universe: A quantum fluctuation gave rise to the singularity from which the universe expanded. Time itself began with that same fluctuation, thus considerations of causality are eliminated.
Quantum fluctuations are observed to occur in the context of the already existing material universe. The question remains. Stated in the purely physical form: Why did a quantum fluctuation occur at all, out of nothing?

Can you substantiate that statement, if not, then don't claim it proves anything.

Most of what I wrote is merely a brief recounting of what astrophysics has to say on the matter. The evidence supporting it is widely available from a multitude of sources. It is considered part of general scientific knowledge.
What remains is a question, not a claim of proof of any sort. If you object to any implied interpretation of scientific observations, evidence, or theory, on my part, please offer a specific critique, which we can then discuss.

quantum fluctuation

multi-verses

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. 93 million miles from the sun.
No other planet has the right ingredients, like we do. Not yet. Earth is perfect for life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. 93 million miles from the sun.
No other planet has the right ingredients, like we do. Not yet. Earth is perfect for life.

Ah, the smell of circular logic ...

If you start with humans then it is amazing that the conditions on earth are just right for humans isn't it? Out of all the planets is is just shocking that humans are on the one just right for them.

---

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. 93 million miles from the sun.
No other planet has the right ingredients, like we do. Not yet. Earth is perfect for life.

Excellent logic.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. 93 million miles from the sun.
No other planet has the right ingredients, like we do. Not yet. Earth is perfect for life.

Excellent logic.

That's an expected quote from you, always going round in circles and in danger of disappearing up your own a___.

In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will

1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern

Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?


In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.

Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.

With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.

Got questions?

Whether or not the earth is or was perfect for the formation of life was not my point. Especially since our presence here makes that statement obvious. For me, the fact that we have neither created any form of life no found a suitable formula for how that first one celled ameba came to be is sufficient to allow for the possibility of God. If and when man or other intelligent being demonstrates that capability then the need for God is dimenished to nothing.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

A measure of a scientist is the quality of their reviewed publications in professional publications, and the number of times they are refered to by other scientists in the same field.

Please direct me to any such publications for William Dembski.

Fred Hoyle work on nucleosynthesis has been acknowledged by William Alfred Fowler, the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 for his theoretical and experimental studies of the nuclear reactions of importance in the formation of the chemical elements in the universe, which was shared with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

But Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory in preference to the steady state theory. We do know that the universe is not in a steady state these days so any reference to his work on the subject has to be flawed.

He also proposed some pretty wacky theories on other subjects, which maybe the reason he was not included in the 1983 Nobel prize and why he was generally ignored by most scientists later in life.

So questions - none. Rejection of your post - Total.

DNA is the basis of life.
DNA is a molecule. Molecules are the combination of atoms.
Atoms interacting with other atoms is nothing new. It has to do
with which particles comprise the atoms.

We have modified DNA. I do not know if we have combined a DNA molecule from scratch, or just "edited" it. But even in editing, have we not created new life?

If you must have a god consider this..
If god is all around us, and established a natural order
Then god is nature.

So worship nature.

Same thing. Without the fluff and guilt trips.

---

Janice