Pascal's wager??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZDarwin doesn't define or even hope to explain the creation of, or the origin of life and its current state. It's only a way to explain the biological variations or differences between things like Horses in separate continents as an example, American Quarter horse vs. Arabian.

If it was a alternative to the creationist idea, then it would fail based on the contradictions of the idea that We as humans are the only ones over billions of years that figured out how to make clothes, shoes, a wheel, or anything other than simple tools, like using a stick.





I wasn't describing, defining, or comparing evolution and/or creation.
I was simply using the terms creation and evolution to try and correct your incorrect use of the word "theory".
There is a specific difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Evolution meets the definition of scientific theory.
Creation meets the definition of theory.

Originally Posted By: fw707scientific theory
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.


I am not aware of any aspects of creation being "repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation".

*
 
Swampy,,,Quote:but if there is, what are the chances that it reveals itself to only one group of people, that exists in only one small point in time and lives only in very specific geographical locations?...In response to your posed question, if you are, or ever have been, a successful manager of a specific group that is presented with a series of interrelated problems that needed to be solved to reach a desired result, then you are aware that in order to build individual confidence that comes with small successes, the manager cannot 'micro' manage the effort, but needs to allow the individuals, as a team, to arrive at the solution on their own...Each will make their own meaningful contributions.

While the manager will check periodically to assure that those small, but critical, goals are being met, the manager will seldom inject his/her personal criticism until the parts have come together and the project is nearing completion..Unless there are glaring deficiencies that the manager has a responsibility to point out as the project progresses, the time for serious critique is when the 'dry run' of the total completion prior to implementation...

I have to think that God, the Creator, by whatever name is used does exactly that...Shows up, communicates to those necessary, and then steps back to allow progress to continue...Kind of like a spider monitoring it's web...

The complexity of the human body, as well as other species, and even the entirety of the universe astounds me all the time...It's been theorized that the average human only utilizes, at most, 10% of the brain's potential, we discard millions of cells daily that are continually replaced...Some of those replacement cells occasionally come in mutated and can produce odd results, but in general, they remain consistent...
 
Originally Posted By: fw707
I wasn't describing, defining, or comparing evolution and/or creation.
I was simply using the terms creation and evolution to try and correct your incorrect use of the word "theory".
There is a specific difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Evolution meets the definition of scientific theory.
Creation meets the definition of theory.

Originally Posted By: fw707scientific theory
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.


I am not aware of any aspects of creation being "repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation".

*

I didn't think you were.. I readily stipulate that Creationism is a theory, and soundly accepted as fact by some. There is no way, at this time, to definitively say it is or isn't. Maybe someday some break through will enable us to see into other "space", or see something that has all along been right around us. Is it possible we or life as we know it is just planted farming. sure. Is it possible there is a God yes.
All, I can say is that i have seen things and been places were things have happened that cannot be explained. These things have caused me to believe there is something out there that is more than we can wrap our heads around.

also,
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts, but theory is not fact until it is provable and repeatable. (i know it's splitting hairs, but it is what it is)
 
Originally Posted By: swampwalkerOriginally Posted By: hm1996 Originally Posted By: swampwalkerIs there a God?

Yes. How can anyone witness the great creation, vast numbers & types of flora and fauna inhabiting same, and reach the conclusion that there is no God?

From the beginning of each day, promised by a beautiful sunrise......


God's countless different creatures, large and small.......








Share His creation and prosper due to the equally vast variety of flora which He has provided for their sustenance.....




To the gorgeous sunsets, signaling the days' end......


And throughout the night.....


God has a plan and He is in control!


Evolution? Perhaps. I do not doubt that some creatures have "evolved" (or adapted) to climate/habitat changes over the centuries, but......

Originally Posted By: Genesis 1In the beginning God............

Originally Posted By: swampwalkerbut if there is, what are the chances that it reveals itself to only one group of people,

Originally Posted By: Mark 16:15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

Originally Posted By: swampwalkerthat exists in only one small point in time


God reveals Himself to all who are willing to search for Him....

Originally Posted By: Psalm 103:17everlasting to everlasting


Originally Posted By: swampwalkerand lives only in very specific geographical locations?


Originally Posted By: Proverbs 15.3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere,


Regards,
hm


Explain how you can pick and choose biblical passages as fact, but seemingly ignore all the others that go against everything that we know to be true?
Your God reveals himself to those who search him? How about to the undiscovered tribes that are living in New Guinea? They will live and die without hearing about your Lord.

A sunset and an armadillo are the works of nature that can be explained without invoking the supernatural. But, yeah nice pictures

So far some interesting points. Seems like agnosticism here is the dominant religion. Much more reasonable in my opinion

Originally Posted By: swampwalkerExplain how you can pick and choose biblical passages as fact, but seemingly ignore all the others that go against everything that we know to be true?

Well, first of all I chose the passages in an attempt to answer the questions asked in your original post. I am unsure just which "others" it is that go against everything you know to be true?

Originally Posted By: swampwalkerYour God reveals himself to those who search him? How about to the undiscovered tribes that are living in New Guinea? They will live and die without hearing about your Lord.

Missionaries are currently working around the world on that as we speak:

Originally Posted By: Mark 16:15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

Originally Posted By: swampwalkerA sunset and an armadillo are the works of nature that can be explained without invoking the supernatural. But, yeah nice pictures

Please do.....explain, that is, just where the universe and the wide variety of "critters" came from. I have a hard time believing they just are or they evolved from an amoeba or a slug. In other words, which came first, the chicken or the egg, and if so, from where?

Originally Posted By: swampwalkerSo far some interesting points. Seems like agnosticism here is the dominant religion. Much more reasonable in my opinion

That's your opinion, Swampy, and you are welcome to it. I guess that we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. My post simply outlines my beliefs, and reasoning behind them.
smile.gif



Regards,
hm
 
Just wanted to point out that the Bible does not disagree with evolution as in the adaptations and changes of a species. Such as if you had a wolf through selective breeding you could end up with a chihuahua. It does however disagree with evolutionary theory as to how life began and that we all came from the same single cell organism. From the definition of a scientific theory and say the theory of evolution in how life began is a scientific theory and as smart as we have become why haven't we been able to reproduce the occurrence of life forming from no life if there is nothing supernatural causing the life to form?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Dholsappleas smart as we have become why haven't we been able to reproduce the occurrence of life forming from no life if there is nothing supernatural causing the life to form?

I can't answer your question about reproducing the occurrence of life forming from no life,
but I can say with reasonable certainty that there's zero evidence of life being caused by a supernatural event in the first place.
 
Then in the same sense that we cannot create life from no life even though we could be able to recreate the environment that it spontaneously happened in and we can create the conditions that caused the spontaneous life, isn't then the fact that we cannot spontaneously create life lead to the possibility of supernatural manipulation to spontaneous create life?
 
A scientist came to God and said, “We’ve figured out how to make a man without you.” God said, “OK, let me see you do it.” So the scientist bent down to the ground and scooped up a handful. But God stopped him and said, “Oh, no you don’t. Get your own dirt!”

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: Dholsappleisn't then the fact that we cannot spontaneously create life lead to the possibility of supernatural manipulation to spontaneous create life?

I don't know any answer for your question other than the one I already gave you:


Originally Posted By: fw707
I can't answer your question about reproducing the occurrence of life forming from no life,
but I can say with reasonable certainty that there's zero evidence of life being caused by a supernatural event in the first place.

I will add that as far as I know there's the exact same zero evidence that anything called "supernatural manipulation" has ever occurred.

*
 
just because there are gaps in scientific knowledge does not prove there's an existence of a god. Lots of revolutionary discoveries have been made and are yet to come, that have put the theologian's panties in a wad. Speaking of revolutionary ideas, did you know that the term "revolutionary" came from the revolutionary idea that the world is round and actually revolves on its axis?

As far as God creating dirt. We actually know exactly how dirt was made. It's made from elements that were created by the intense gravity of stars. The elements that make up your body were also created through the same process.

Stars create new elements in their cores by squeezing elements together in a process called nuclear fusion. First, stars fuse hydrogen atoms into helium. Helium atoms then fuse to create beryllium, and so on, until fusion in the star's core has created every element up to iron.Jan 13, 2012
 
Last edited:
i should try to clarify my second question... you said that with reasonable certainty there is zero evidence of life being caused by a supernatural event in the first place. My second question then is: does the fact that we cannot create life from nonlife (which is pasteur scientific law)lead to the possibility and provide at least some evidence for life forming by supernatural causes? After all by the definition of scientific theories, they are repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiments. Since life forming from non life hasn't been confirmed then there is the possibility that it happened supernaturally.
 
Swamp do you find it a little interesting that in the creation account in genesis God formed Adam out of dirt... and now you tell me that the human body is composed of the same elements found in dirt. Interesting to me because I doubt Moses knew that fun fact as he was writing the book of genesis
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Dholsapplei should try to clarify my second question... you said that with reasonable certainty there is zero evidence of life being caused by a supernatural event in the first place. My second question then is: does the fact that we cannot create life from nonlife (which is pasteur scientific law)lead to the possibility and provide at least some evidence for life forming by supernatural causes? After all by the definition of scientific theories, they are repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiments. Since life forming from non life hasn't been confirmed then there is the possibility that it happened supernaturally.

I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that anything has ever happened supernaturally, so I have no reason whatsoever to believe that life has ever, or could ever have been created supernaturally.
 
So you don't think that seeing living things is evidence of anything supernatural? Because if it wasn't than science (natural science) should be able to recreate it. Since it cannot recreate it and something living coming from something no living defies the law of natural science (pastuer's) then it must have been formed super naturally (meaning not naturally, super natural is defined as anything that natural science cannot explain)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DholsappleSo you don't think that seeing living things is evidence of anything supernatural? Because if it wasn't than science (natural science) should be able to recreate it. Since it cannot recreate it and something living coming from something no living defies the law of natural science (pastuer's) then it must have been formed super naturally (meaning not naturally, super natural is defined as anything that natural science cannot explain)

"Living things" are in the natural world. They are not supernatural.
They recreate (reproduce) themselves through biological processes.

I'm not really understanding your questions anymore.
Maybe somebody else can answer them. I've done about all I can do.

*
 
Right they are living but the first one must have come from something non living. Therefore seeing anything alive is evidence of the supernatural because natural science cannot explain how life comes from something that is not alive. As I stated above it defies (pasteurs) law of natural science. Supernatural science deals with anything that cannot be explained through natural science. Therefore seeing life is in effect evidence of something supernatural. Which leads to the possibility that God could exist because you now have the evidence of the supernatural you claimed you had no evidence of.

Paraphrasing romans 1:20: anyone who has seen Gods creation is without excuse to not know there is a God
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: DholsappleSo you don't think that seeing living things is evidence of anything supernatural? Because if it wasn't than science (natural science) should be able to recreate it. Since it cannot recreate it and something living coming from something no living defies the law of natural science (pastuer's) then it must have been formed super naturally (meaning not naturally, super natural is defined as anything that natural science cannot explain)

"Living things" are in the natural world. They are not supernatural.
They recreate (reproduce) themselves through biological processes.

I'm not really understanding your questions anymore.
Maybe somebody else can answer them. I've done about all I can do.

*

I know exactly where you are coming from... humans creating life from nothing. Even if humans achieved creating a living cell from nothing, it is still light years from creating a conscience. Now give it vision, with emotions to not just think but actually have feelings with physical symptoms such as tears. We are not talking about simple stem cells in test tubes or growing vegetables in a garden, we are talking desire for intent and purpose. We are not talking about data on external hard drives or uploaded to the cloud, we are talking about memories, dreams and hope.

"The Latin word anima, meaning “breath” or “spirit,” gives us the root anim. Words from the Latin anima have something to do with having breath or spirit. An animal is a living creature that breathes and can move around on its own. To animate something is to give it breath or life."

If we found a way to create the "spark of life" it would have no spirit. From a medical standpoint there is a long waiting list to get a liver transplant. Growing humans without souls to harvest their organs could save a lot of lives. Yet even scientists recognize an ethical and taboo line when it comes to cloning humans. Try to picture clones integrating into family life or society in general. I find it awkward to picture living among humans whom have no souls.
 
Originally Posted By: DholsappleRight they are living but the first one must have come from something non living. Therefore seeing anything alive is evidence of the supernatural because natural science cannot explain how life comes from something that is not alive. As I stated above it defies (pasteurs) law of natural science. Supernatural science deals with anything that cannot be explained through natural science. Therefore seeing life is in effect evidence of something supernatural. Which leads to the possibility that God could exist because you now have the evidence of the supernatural you claimed you had no evidence of.

Paraphrasing romans 1:20: anyone who has seen Gods creation is without excuse to not know there is a God

Well, I'll say it one more time-
I see no evidence to lead me to believe that a supernatural event has occurred. There is no support for the idea.
You can twist logic around any way you want, but there is zero evidence to lead to a conclusion that life began from anything other than a natural origin.
And as far as the possibility that God could exist- I have never said that God didn't exist. I have said there's just no evidence to support that idea either.

And quoting or paraphrasing scripture adds absolutely no credibility to your idea concerning the creation of life. There's no evidence to support scripture either.
It means as much to me as a quote from a scientific journal would mean to you.

*
 
Originally Posted By: Dholsapple As I stated above it defies (pasteurs) law of natural science.

Ok, now I got it.
I googled Pasteurs Law and the first thing on the list was a link to Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" website. He's the guy that has the Ark and Creation Museum stuff in northern KY.

https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/louis-pasteurs-views-on-creation-evolution-germs/

"Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life."

Ken Ham's smoke and mirrors at its best!
lol.gif



Looks like Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation".

"But spontaneous generation died a very slow death; it was reinforced by the discovery of numerous microscopic "animalcules", which often seemed to be spontaneously generated. But Redi-style experiments showed that even microorganisms are not spontaneously generated; the deathblow was delivered by Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiments with meat broth.
Some creationists wave around Pasteur's experiments as if they are some sort of absolute demostration, but that is not the case. He only showed that abiogenesis does not take place in certain commonplace circumstances."

Here's some info on spontaneous generation, including a recipe from 1620 on how to make fully grown mice from sweaty underwear and wheat husks:

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

*
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Infidel 762Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: DholsappleSo you don't think that seeing living things is evidence of anything supernatural? Because if it wasn't than science (natural science) should be able to recreate it. Since it cannot recreate it and something living coming from something no living defies the law of natural science (pastuer's) then it must have been formed super naturally (meaning not naturally, super natural is defined as anything that natural science cannot explain)

"Living things" are in the natural world. They are not supernatural.
They recreate (reproduce) themselves through biological processes.

I'm not really understanding your questions anymore.
Maybe somebody else can answer them. I've done about all I can do.

*

I know exactly where you are coming from... humans creating life from nothing. Even if humans achieved creating a living cell from nothing, it is still light years from creating a conscience. Now give it vision, with emotions to not just think but actually have feelings with physical symptoms such as tears. We are not talking about simple stem cells in test tubes or growing vegetables in a garden, we are talking desire for intent and purpose. We are not talking about data on external hard drives or uploaded to the cloud, we are talking about memories, dreams and hope.

"The Latin word anima, meaning “breath” or “spirit,” gives us the root anim. Words from the Latin anima have something to do with having breath or spirit. An animal is a living creature that breathes and can move around on its own. To animate something is to give it breath or life."

If we found a way to create the "spark of life" it would have no spirit. From a medical standpoint there is a long waiting list to get a liver transplant. Growing humans without souls to harvest their organs could save a lot of lives. Yet even scientists recognize an ethical and taboo line when it comes to cloning humans. Try to picture clones integrating into family life or society in general. I find it awkward to picture living among humans whom have no souls.

Let's surmise that there is no supernatural supreme being. Does this make life any less miraculous? From my point of view it's more inspirational knowing that I am an expression of the universe, rather than an addition added to it (as in being created apart from) I know you've brought it up there's a difference between believing of and in God. My stance is there's a difference between being put into this universe or coming out of it. The later having much more meaning to it.

Vision, feelings, emotions (good and bad) are natural phenomena that the universe produces in the mind. Perhaps, only to experience itself for a short time or maybe just out of shear randomness. Either way, life becomes far easier once you realize that you are not the driver at wheel and never have been. That "My" beliefs have little to do with "my" destiny.
the following of primitive doctrines written in stone, or on dusty scrolls or Thousands of precepts with no meaning and or worshiping various Gods, seems to take us away from what we already Innately know. It's Kinda like riding a bike with training wheels at 16 years old. We don't need them and they're kind of hindering the ride..at any rate I'm a libertarian throughout politically and spiritually. I see what riligion does as a moral tyranny over the spirit of man. Just as I see any dictatorial government as tyranny over its subjects.

If God did exist. He already deligated to us the power to survive without his guidance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top