God?

Post Reply New Topic

8.

With all earthy drives and neurochemical settings (agitation for motivating survival) still born by the individual - yes, both would be hell. Then again assuming that would still be in tact is where the analogy breaks down.

I think that when scientists create life inside their laboratory, it shows that this laboratory life did not come from blind chance, but rather it came from an intelligent mind.

For me, life created in the laboratory proves that created life does not come about by chance mutations or accidental occurrences, but that it comes about by an enormous amount of thought and an immensely complex laboratory under tightly controlled conditions.

And I personally believe that I was created by the Master Scientist, and that scientist I call God.

That makes you incredibly unique. I was created by my mother and father like most other people.

Your mother and your father and all their ancestors all the way back to one celled organisms. And they were powered by sunlight or the internal heat of the planet.

ruveyn

Oh, yes, and I give thanks to God for creating not only my parents but also all their ancestors, one celled organisms, sunlight, and the internal heat of the planet.

I maintain that when scientists create life inside the laboratory, a laboratory made by humans, that the scientists are showing us that this laboratory life, which scientists created, did not come from blind chance, but rather it came from an intelligent mind.

The profound ignorance displayed regularly by people demanding an anthropomorphic solution to the way the universe operates is rather discouraging. They believe that all processes are mere chance and random if the wise hand of some imaginary being is not in control. Natural processes are clearly not chance, clearly not random even though at the subatomic level chance plays a role. Matter and energy have discrete and rational relationships with nobody in charge and these relationships, as is very evident bring about extremely sophisticated structures. Such as us. All a scientist in a laboratory does is repeat field conditions which regularly appear in nature and obtain results similar to that found in nature.

The atheist/theist argument will likely never be resolved, partly because everything before the singularity is ad hoc and because you can either view the laws as self-affirming or you can view them as having a reason for being such as an unmoved mover who designed everything to flow exactly the way it is. The laws of the natural world and their persistence actually work quite well for theodicy purposes and pre-dating everything you have the theory put forward by many atheists that there are likely far more universes created by singularities in other universes than the amount of people that ever have or will walk this earth to get the kinds of factors we have here - that just begs the question and postpones; when did it start?

I won't deny, the debate over this is critical; partly to get barbaric tendencies out of theists crushed and severly looked down on but just as much for - if atheists are ever able to truly prove their point and that there absolutely is no God - the theists have the role of maturing the atheistic understanding of what the human race is, how it does and doesn't work, and what assertions atheists have made about human nature are realistic vs. which assumptions are purely pie-in-the-sky and are still dangerously naive. We've talked about this one before; we're coming to an age where technology will skyrocket and the higher technology the higher the risks for us making a terminal mistake.

If it gets to be more than you can handle, this profound ignorance, I suggest you take your own life. Once dead, you won't be discouraged by it.

Is there some form of intimidation implied? Religions have that habit.