The creator did it.

[A REAL CHRISTIAN]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

 

[ChristineM]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Please provide evidence of your claim that science had had repeatedly shown something does not come from nothing.

Also the last one to claim life cannot come from nom living things was Pasteur over 100 years ago and his experiments were not only flawed but incomplete.

Regarding your first claim here is a paper showing it is false
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm.

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that

Since something does not come from nothing, everything "creates" into being in itself in a cycle. For example, a circle does not have a beginning. Everything forms, twists, and wraps, but never, in itself, create from nothing.

If something did not come from nothing, there is no creator (first cause). Just a cause working, forming, and recycling material and atoms etc within itself. No first cause. Just cause and affect.

Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

True.

It really isn't important to fuss at what other people believe. It doesn't hurt to think there is a first cause while another cause and affect. If these two beliefs help with making sense of the world, that's good. If it leads one to harm others, that isn't. It has nothing to do with the belief itself just a person's actions based on what they believe.

 

[Audie]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

I can blame you or anyone for such a gross
failure of due diligence.

Science certainly has not proved life cannot
come from non living.

"Shown" is like Edison showed that 999 tries to
make a light bulb dont work.

"Something from nothing" is a false isuue-
and would eliminate your "god". So you might want to
steer clear of them shoals.

I will let the physics people explain why it is
a false issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

- "Science" doesn't actually say that.
- If it did, a God from nothing would violate it.
- Your religion isn't some sort of default.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things...

I think you're confusing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis, my friend.

 

[Audie]

- "Science" doesn't actually say that.
- If it did, a God from nothing would violate it.
- Your religion isn't some sort of default.

Next q. Will he learn from being corrected.

 

[ChristineM]

Next q. Will he learn from being corrected.

Wanna bet?

 

[Audie]

Wanna bet?

Haha. Nope.

 

[Skwim]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing

No it hasn't. It has only concluded that everything but one, the big bang, can be shown to have come from something.The origin of the BB remains a mystery whose answer my very well be that it did come from nothing. See HERE for the mathematical proof of the possibility

and life does not come from nonliving things

No it hasn't. In fact, that it did come from non-life looks more and more possible all the time.
HERE are some of the latest findings.

can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that?

Only if I don't believe they're too astute. Astute people, or those with a decent ability to reason, can see that the absence of X doesn't necessarily mean the presence of an unsubstantiated Y.

Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"?

Well, one could, but why? How did this confirmation of your creator arise from fact or at least irrefutable evidence? If it didn't why are your believing in it as factual?

Thing is, astute people, and those with sumply a decent ability to reason aren't afraid of saying, "I don't know." They see no need to create a magic man in the universe who serves as the answer for all our unanswered questions.

So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Nothing. I certainly don't care.

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

I prefer to stick with the actuality by which we live in. If a person wants to say there's a creator that's their prerogative, but to me I'd rather not fabricate or embellish what we know and experience beyond what it is, as much as humanly possible. I think it's more important to see what the actual truth is of the matter rather than what I wish would be or desire to be.

 

[74x12]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

About 350 years ago Francisco Redi came up with a way to disprove spontaneous generation. Since then; atheists have brought back the concept under the name "abiogenesis". It makes no sense however.

 

[Skwim]

About 350 years ago Francisco Redi came up with a way to disprove spontaneous generation. Since then; atheists have brought back the concept under the name "abiogenesis".

Atheists and Christians alike. And abiogenesis is hardly the spontaneous generation Redi disproved.

May I suggest

​

To help you out.

It makes no sense however.

Because . . . . .? Never mind. I know why it can't.

.

 

[Audie]

About 350 years ago Francisco Redi came up with a way to disprove spontaneous generation. Since then; atheists have brought back the concept under the name "abiogenesis". It makes no sense however.

You are the one making no sense.
But this may not be worth explaining to you.

 

[sayak83]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

Or universe is eternal. Another far more reasonable option that positing and invisible creator.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing . . .

True, something always existed as far as science is concerned, and that something is the Quantum World of Quantum Mechanics that our universe formed in and all possible universes.

. . . and life does not come from nonliving things

As far as science is concerned life originated from non-living chemicals in the early earth environment. The science of abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.

. . . can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you don't believe that? Once this door is open why couldn't someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

The door is most definitely open, and many people believe in God the Creator of Heaven and Earth, but no not based on science. Science is neutral as to the existence of God as the Creator nor that God does not exist.. Methodological Naturalism can only describe, investigate and and falsify theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

 

[exchemist]

About 350 years ago Francisco Redi came up with a way to disprove spontaneous generation. Since then; atheists have brought back the concept under the name "abiogenesis". It makes no sense however.

Abiogenesis and the ancient notion of "spontaneous generation" have nothing whatever in common. Most creationists know this perfectly well and conflate the two as a dishonest rhetorical trick, feigning stupidity when the difference is explained.

It gets very tiresome.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

About 350 years ago Francisco Redi came up with a way to disprove spontaneous generation. Since then; atheists have brought back the concept under the name "abiogenesis". It makes no sense however.

Actually, the people proposing spontaneous generation are creationists.

 

[Audie]

&

Actually, the people proposing spontaneous generation are creationists.

That may of went over the heads of our creationists

 

[A REAL CHRISTIAN]

Please provide evidence of your claim that science had had repeatedly shown something does not come from nothing.

Also the last one to claim life cannot come from nom living things was Pasteur over 100 years ago and his experiments were not only flawed but incomplete.

Regarding your first claim here is a paper showing it is false
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

That article literally starts off repeating my claim then tries to put forth A THEORY of how it could have happened. What you cant find a video or demonstration showing one of these theories actually working? Pasteuer is known for proving spontaneous combustion does not happen. Why mention him?