Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How about the unfulfilled prophecies. Are they to be swept under the rug?
Weren't the ingredients nucleosynthesized within stars, by ordinary physics?
Probably nothing at first at least, except give us an understanding of how life could arise. Down the line and far into the future, we could potentially manipulate or create simple lifeforms, many of which could help cure diseases or something. Maybe we could make some bacteria that consumed CO2 or plastic or whatever. I don't know what exactly such knowledge would result in, guess it depends how it turns out.
And it also opens up the possibilities by a lot. By factors that we can't even imagine. Which I suspect is why your so determined to ignore it.
Yes, but the further "down the road" it goes, the wider the range of possibilities, and the more obvious our ignorance becomes. Which is exactly what the 'scientism' crowd can't tolerate.
Not at all. As I say, the challenge, chemically, would remain the same. The reason I don't think it likely is that most scientists working in the field don't think it likely, so I listen to them. (As @Subduction Zone 's detective work has revealed, you most likely did misunderstand De Grasse Tyson. See post 219.)
You've left out entropy and liberals.
Not if some alien intelligence were involved. or some as yet unknown chemistry or conditions. Both possibilities that you are intent on ignoring even though you can't rule them out.
That would be making life without God, so yes, it would prove that. You appear to be desperate when you make such a statement.
Without evidence and implausible is grounds to reject an idea, especially supernatural ideas. Not only is there no evdience for a suvernatural, it isn't consistent with what the evidence shows us.
Which ius why it is irrelevant in a debate. We don't care what a person tells themselves is true, we care what the evidence informs us about.
What are you talking about? Gods aren't known to exist. You might as well bring up unicorns. Are they relevant to anything? No. Stick to facts.
Gods are irrelevant.
There is no evidence of a supernatural. Just follow evidence. And I suggest to theists that they examine their own motives. You seem hellbent on trying to find a gap to stick your God into, and get agreement from we critical thinkers. But we understand your mind tricks better than you do. You are fooled, we are not.
Another self-deceptive word game here. You aren't using evidence or reason, you are inventing an unlikely future event that would soothe your anxiety that natuyre caused the rise of life. This isn't an argument based in evidence, this is a desperate denial of what science has shown to be true.
Another deseperate attempt to define science in a way that aims to give your religious assumvtions some hope. Why not adjust your own beliefs instead of adjusting results in science? Do you really need your illusions that badly? Are you even aware of your motives of thiuking this way?
See, another example of having to hold onto beliefs that are not valid. Evolution is so well established in studies that it is considered a fact. Yet many of your fellow believers reject this science so they can interpret the Bible in a way that is contrary to facts and knowledge. We can't exvect believers to be rational and adjust their beliefs to what science reveals. Even you are resisting as I have pointed out. This is the toxic relationship Christianity has with many people.
Science does an excellent job of being ethical and objective. It doesn't need theists to chime in when we see theists unable to accept facts and evidence when it challenges their religious beliefs. Believers need to get their own act together, and adjust their beliefs to fit reality. There's a reason Christianity is dying among liberals and moderates, and it is all the dubious concepts they hold.
Here we go again with a mischaracterization of science. Why? To make science seem as if it is religious. Magic? No science claims that. You are a theist is, and doing so for self-serving reasons. This is bad faith in debate. Why don't you slow down and think through what you think and believe?
You broought it up, it's your bad faith to mischaracterize science like this.
Look at your own behavior in your response. Look at the bad faith, the attempts at deception, the false claims, the false assertions, etc. How can you be critical of atheists when we have to constantly correct you believers and all your unforced errors of thinking? You have the opportunity to learn and hone your reasoning skills, but you are more interested in trying to deceive, both yourselves and others. Many believers are so absorbed in their beliefs that they can't consider the possibility they are mistaken.
And here you go again. You have awareness that your religious beliefs lack evidence, but you want some credibility so pretend that you and atheists are on equal footing. You elevate your position and deflate the atheist position, which is not true or honest. Your dilemma is that atheists follow evidence and use critical thinking, and theists lack evidence and rely on learned beliefs and tricky, deceptive thinking. You don't seem willing to admit that.
There does not appear to be any other evidence.
Not at all. No one, least of all me, is claiming that science has the answers to this question. What I am claiming is that science gives us the toolkit to address it:
In context with what I said previously, which is not what you said. Okay?
You said you were just guessing, so I am asking if this is a different guessing to the guessing scientists use.
No problem.A methodology applies in general, so others can see how you conducted your research and reach the conclusion you did. So there is no limitation to specific groups, if you have to do that, then I would argue that your methodology is flawed.
Proposed alternative mechanisms to what you believe?
