I want to start with that you did a fairly nice attempt of trying to prove god with science. But you don't really think out of the box and hold to the opinions of other people who did not research any further. If you use your logics, you'd see that alot of what has been written there is twisted in a way that it suddenly does prove god, leaving a few important facts out.

What I have written below does not prove that god exists, nor that he/she/it didn't. I simply get the facts from your site and tell you why they are wrong/twisted. I hope to show you that the truth does not stop there where you think you reached your victory.


Quote:

And if life began, there must have been a point in time - before it began - when life did not exist. Logical. But wait - we just said that the initiation of life from non-life had to have occured, when the Law of Biogenesis states that this is impossible!




The law of "life cannot exist from unliving material" was there, and has been proven false. Just like you described, it can't be true, because a while back there weren't any living things at all, thus life must have begun from nonliving material. But by saying this theory is false, doesn't mean other theories are wrong. Probably only complex lifeforms can not be created from unliving material, but very simple lifeforms can. Science based upon the first theorie that is also applyable on the second theory are not to be thrown away. So, this does not prove that there was a god at all.

If I use your logics now, I just proved that there is no god;
Quote:


By the very definition of a scientific law we see that this is impossible, except if God, the creator of this law, bypassed it to initiate life. Therefore, God must exist.




I just proved this theory wrong (since life without god is possible by altering the first theory) thus the fact "god exists" can be thrown away But that is not how you make and scap theories. God may exist because the fact could be applied on a different theory that has not been whiped out by other proven theories.



Now about the chances of nature arranging itself instead of the help of god:

Concidering the size of the universe and the amount of planets, theres about a 99.99% chance that somewhere on one of those planets nature happened to arrange itself. Throwing cards from 30 miles high and hope they will rearrange on the ground... well... the chances are significantly bigger that atoms stuck together in complex molecules, which on their turn move around other molecules in a way that it actually happened to benefit the environment and speeded up certain processes (e.g. inside the atomcore, who knows what kind of forces are generated between atoms when grouping together effecting an atoms behaviour). The process became solid, stable and sucked more molecules in. Small chemical processes start to emerge and so on and so forth.

Over a timerange of millions of years on billions and billions of planets... I think the chance that this would have happened are bigger than throwing a card deck even a thousand times from 5 meter and hope they will land arranged.




Quote:



There's a mosquito buzzing around your head. You tolerate it for a while but eventually it starts really annoying you, so you smack it with a flyswatter and lay it to ruin. At this point you start thinking about the origins of life (who doesn't?). As you look at the dead remains of this bug you realize that all the ingredients for creating life are sitting right there, in one pile. The only thing you did was disorganize these ingredients by smashing the mosquito. You can shock the smear of insect guts with lightning, do a dance, cry on it and hope your tears water it and bring it to life, but the fact is the misquito will not come back to life because (a) it is already dead, and the Law of Biogenesis says that life will never come from things that are not alive, and (b) it is now disorganized and will not organize itself on its own.




I can't say anymore than this is just not true

1. Eventually, the bug will be consumed by nature and the life ingredients will be shared among other lifeforms.
2. The more complex a lifeform gets, the more fragile it will become. It needs to be desintegrated into seperate pieces of life ingredients again before it will start living.

If you would seal the bug with a box from the entire world, no effect from any other lifeform, and not let any piece of ingredient escape the sealed box and wait a million years, you might see a different bug appear from it.

Maybe you only need a little sunlight, radiation and water going in and out the box though .


I could think of a dozen of theories why god exists, and nobody could say I was wrong.

I could think of a dozen of theories why god is only between our ears, and nobody could prove me wrong.

But those are theories at the edge of what we know, and what we could imagine what comes next. It will always be speculating. There is no point in saying god does or does not exist, because we simply do not now. No matter how much we like to prove with science. It could very well be that science proves god to be true. I personally would think that as a neat thing, as we can focus on the next step, communicating with our powerfull lord and gain the real facts aside what the bible tells us...

On the other hand, I wouldn't care if there was no god. We just do what we always did; develop and search for other lonely species in space.


EDIT:

Quote:


The truth is, it takes more blind faith to believe in a world without God than in a world with Him. Why not follow Occam's Razor and go with the simpler possible explanation? And while you're at it, you get a God who loves you, wants to know you, has your back, and wants you to spend eternity with Him. Why not?




Because some people made a purpose in their life where they search for love, and some people made a purpose in their life where they chase the truths.

I chase the truths

Last edited by Jostie; 08/01/07 22:53.