@
NoMayo15 once you start chopping up my posts I quickly lose interest because it's a sign I'm dedicating too much time to what I know is an exercise in futility. Just letting you know, please don't take it personally.
Ha. Okay, fine. If you don't care for my posting style, then bow out of the thread, or ignore my posts I suppose. I'm simply trying to have a conversation with you, and I find it difficult to have this type of discussion when parties start with different premises. If you say something early on that I disagree with, most likely I'm also going to disagree with whatever conclusion you make. And if you make a million points, I find it helpful to address them one by one ... I only chop it up to make it a bit easier on the eyes, as opposed to one massive block of text.
Anyway, just to touch on a few points, nature is a byproduct of the Devine. Nature, itself, is miraculous because without the Devine, there is no nature. You can "easily" disprove that statement by giving another explanation for the origins of life, but of course you cannot do this.
Okay, well obviously I disagree with this ... that nature couldn't exist without some supernatural entity. I mean, that's a premise that's completely unjustified. But also you make another point that an alternative hypothesis for creation would disprove your belief. Although there ARE combating hypotheses in science now, even if there weren't ... even if the only explanation for the origins of life was "god" or "magic" or whatever, that doesn't give it any credence. It doesn't validate creationism, or make it true by default. It's a position that needs more justification than "I don't think there's any other way it could happen". Especially since we don't even know if a realm exists outside of the natural world. This realm where, at least you think, a god exists.
I'd also like to point out that I don't care if you agree with me. Ironically, most of the world does (making you the minority) but that doesn't matter either.
And truth isn't exactly a popularity contest. A lot of people believe a lot of false things. This is irrelevant, and not a pathway to truth.... anddd now I see that you agree with me.... so nevermind. (Why even bring it up then
?)
It boils down to logic. You have absolutely no explanation whatsoever for how the universe came into existence. You have absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the origin of life. Not only that, you don't even have a respectable theory. Life appearing from the nothing is completely unscientific and certainly unproven. Never has life come from an inanimate object. Unless you're talking about a miracle? Devine. How do you not see the hypocrisy of your beliefs?
First, I addressed this earlier, and I'll reiterate that it's irrelevant if I can't explain the origins of the universe ... that doesn't make your position more logical, or true. But, you are ultimately wrong. Scientists
do have somewhat of an understanding of how the universe came to be some 14 odd billion years ago, and how life formed and became as diverse as what we see today. Now, we don't have all the answers ... we don't know everything 100%, and there are some gaps in our knowledge. But again, that doesn't make it more logical to appeal to magic when we don't know if that is actually the answer.
And another thing. You reject abiogenesis for being, as you put it, unscientific and unproven. Yet you have no qualms with blindly accepting your form of creationism, which actually IS unscientific and unproven. Why do you feel it's okay to do this .. special pleading where, as long as it makes sense to you, it's okay to accept creationism without evidence? Why do you reject the actual science behind this for some sort of supernatural explanation?
Also, define miracle. Depending on what you mean by it, no, I don't think it required a deity, even if it was unlikely.
You claim to follow science but cling to unscientific beliefs. You claim to use logic but your position is completely illogical. It's my position that life cannot come from nothing without some sort of miracle. Until you can prove otherwise you need to get back in that lab and keep experimenting until you can. Now the burden of proof for your ridiculous claim is on you. Prove life can originate from nothing or
.
Well, one, we've already proven, under the right conditions, that it's possible for the building blocks of life to form by purely natural means. Also, I make no claims of having an answer. I simply report the science, as it is the single most reliable method we have to determine what's true about the universe. YOU'RE the only one that's made claims in this thread, not me.
I didn't bring it up. You did. That was a direct response to "Well, if you care about whether or not your beliefs are true, and whether people agree that your position is supported by the evidence and therefore likely to be true, then yes, it is sort of your problem."
