Does God Exist?

[Hollie]

Well we don’t know this is the first occurrence, right?

Do you really believe the organic micro machines of living organisms are happenstance? Have you seen the animations of the assembly line like machinations of these organic machines?

You think intelligence developed on earth before man? Zero evidence for that I'd say.

Yes I do. Simple natural laws can give rise to amazing things. Picture trillions of mindless molecules floating in water, what are the odds that they will form themselves into a regular geometric solid where every one is situated exactly like every other? Happens all the time, they are called crystals. No intelligence required.

The intelligence is in the laws of nature which predestined those things. It’s not an accident that life and intelligence is programmed into the fabric of existence.

You are only partly correct - normal for us humans, btw.

The fine tuned laws and properties of our universe allow for the creation of life and for intelligent life - however these do not evolve by chance.

For example, the precisely fine tuned rate for the expansion of our universe allowed for stars including supernovae to exist - and for supernovae to produce the elements needed for the creation of life.

Also the properties of these elements and complex compounds/molecules of these elements allow them to be arranged as informational rather than simply statistical molecules - for example: informational molecules (which also require translation and messenger molecules (e.g. messenger RNA).

However, information does not occur in molecules by chance - entropy works in the opposite direction - hence the difference between dead molecules and living molecules - at death information decays or leaves so that the functions of life cannot proceed.

For life to come into existence, informational molecules not only need to be created, along with translator molecules - but they need to be in the same place at the same time!

Btw - crystals are repetitive while informational molecules are variant.

The difficulty in creating life (which human creators cannot do) is illustrated in the environments needed to synthesize all of the 20 amino acids required for life:

Some amino acids prefer hot, others prefer cold for synthesis. Some prefer acid, others neutral or alkaline. Some prefer wet, others prefer dry - some even require condensing agents. You cannot have hot & cold, acid and alkaline, wet and dry in the same place at the same time. Unless, of course, an intelligent chemist is involved - of superior intelligence to us humans.

Would you all like me to post details as to the results of synthesis experiments like those of Miller - Urey, etc.? Suffice it to say for now that most are unaware that the primary chemical reaction product is formic acid, not amino acids. And that most amino acids and other molecules produced (the chemical reaction product proportions) are mostly useless (or worse) to life.

And, finally, chance synthesis of polypeptides from these amino acids and then further to proteins are always statistical, not informational. [chance formation of even statistical proteins has an incredibly low probability given favorable primordial soups.]

I should add the need for exact 3-d fit of enzymes and receptors for the life processes to proceed.

Which part did I get wrong?

Perhaps I should rephrase. Indeed the universe is fine tuned for life as we know it - you are correct about that.

I was pointing out more detail. The fine tuning of our universe allowed for the creation of life as we know it. However, life does not spontaneously form from the elements that supernovae produce - see my posts for more detail. Life still needed an intelligent creator so as to produce the needed informational molecules at the same place and time.

An example is HCN (1 atom Hydrogen, 1 atom carbon, 1 atom Nitrogen). Hydrogen was produced without stars, supernovae produced carbon, nitrogen and oxygen (the O in H2O). But the reactions of HCN with H2O do not lead to molecules required for life in significant proportions. An intelligent chemist is needed to isolate/select each step towards simple and complex amino acids and to biologically important dipeptides to polypeptide to proteins.

You presume something you call "fine-tuning" of the universe but you neglect to demonstrate this "fine-tuning" in the midst of a violent universe, much of which is hostile to life. Have you seen the result of cometary bombardment of the moon, or that little dalliance that occurred on this planet leaving the Chicxulub crater?

 

[Blues Man]

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

Put an atheist on Gilligan's Island for 1 month and they'll believe in God.

Only if Ginger and Maryann are still there

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, there is evidence of the definitions of the word "spirit" used in the Hebrew Scriptures {OT] (Hebrew ruahh) and in the Christian Greek Scriptures [NT] (Greek pneuma).

Of course, that's not a scientific idea. I can find "evidence for the definition" of unicorns in children's books.

Second, there is prejudice against belief in God for peer approval - including monetary factors such as being approved for grants.

Silly red herring. First, determining spirits exist would not be evidence for gods. Second, this argument is prima facie absurd. Scientists get famous by discovering and proving ideas that prove everyone else wrong. This statement by you shows abject ignorance of and, frankly, contempt for the scientific process. Which is to be expected from a frustrated religious person whose dogma is at odds with our scientifically gained, empirical knowledge.

Listen up:

Once you have entered magic into the discussion, all possibility of evidence goes out the window. You could never find deterministic evidence for or against magic. Ever. So the moment you accepted magic, you denied yourself access to even the idea of evidence. So stop trying to join two ideas that can never be compatible.

 

[BreezeWood]

Hollie - please note that I am posting actual scientific evidence - not merely rhetoric. You brought up the Miller-Urey experiment - I am simply posting the details of the results of that and similar origin of life synthesis experiments. Do you deny formic acid is the primary chemical reaction product? What chemical reaction product proportions have you found in your scientific research?

Hollie - please note that I am posting actual scientific evidence - not merely rhetoric.

.
and after all that your proof life "could" not evolve naturally what then is left are your scriptures for your final conclusion which of course can not be merely rhetoric - because you will now provide the irrefutable evidence for your gods existence that will lay all other options to rest.

have those kinds of religionist ever considered disinformation is an evil unto itself the practitioners ultimately will be held accountable for.

their persecution and victimization of the innocent.

 

[james bond]

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

Go ahead and add the early gases which you claim. What happens to the Miller-Urey experiment?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

I give up, what happens to the Miller-Urey experiment? More to the point, why should we care?

I wanted you to try adding oxygen to the experiment online. The figure would show you what happens. Better online that in real life.

Anyway, today we know it was the volcanic or methane gases that was around during primordial Earth. Would God cause you harm then? Nope.

 

[Indeependent]

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

Go ahead and add the early gases which you claim. What happens to the Miller-Urey experiment?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

I give up, what happens to the Miller-Urey experiment? More to the point, why should we care?

I am sure you will know the answer within the next 120 years.
Atheism is a dangerous path.
If you don't believe in God, God doesn't believe in you.
As a Noachide, you are not required to practice any religious activities.

 

[james bond]

T

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

Go ahead and add the early gases which you claim. What happens to the Miller-Urey experiment?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

Thaxton, et al, documented the actual chemical reaction product proportions in this book:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

From page 23:

"In 1974, Miller reported the amino acids he had obtained in electrical discharge experiments.8 These are listed in table 3-2."

Reference 8. Miller and Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth, p. 84. See also: D. Ring, Y. Wolman, N. Friedmann, and S. Miller, 1972. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69, 765; Y. Wolman, W.J. Haverland, and S.L. Miller, 1972. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69, 809; S. Miller, 1955. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 77,2351.

Table3-2. Yields of amino acids obtained from sparking a mixture of CFL, NHl, H20 and H2.
Compound
Glycine Alanine a-Amino-n-butyric acid a-Aminoisobutyric acid Valine Norvaline Isovaline Leucine Isoleucine Alloisoleucine Norleucine tert-Leucine Proline Aspartic acid Glutamic acid Serine Threonine Allothreonine
Yield (14M) Compound Yield (14M)
440 790 270 30 19.5 61 5 11.3 4.8 5.1 6.0 < 0.02 1.5 34 7.7 5.0 0.8 0.8
a:y-Diaminobutyric acid a-Hydroxy-')'-aminobutyric acid Sarcosine N-Ethylglycine N-Propylglycine N-Isopropylglycine N-Methylalanine N-Ethylalanine ,8-Alanine ,8-Amino-n-butyric acid ,8-Amino-isobutyric acid "Y-Aminobutyric acid N-Methyl-,8-alanine N-Ethyl-,8-alanine Pipecolic acid a,,B-Diaminopropionic acid Isoserine
33 74 55 30 2 2 15 < 0.2 18.8 0.3 0.3 2.4 5 2 0.05 6.4 5.5
(From S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.)

See the link for correct formatting.

Note this list does not include formic acid, the primary product, because it is not an amino acid.

Note Glycine has the highest proportion. This is because Glycine is the simplest amino acid. From Bing search:

"The simplest, and smallest, amino acid found in proteins is glycine for which the R-group is a hydrogen (H)."

There are about 500 naturally occurring amino acids - only 20 (L polarized) are used in life.

Table 3-3 (page 25) includes the primary chemical reaction product: formic acid. It is the base of comparison of chemical reaction product proportions with a number of 1,000. By comparison, Glycine is 270 and Glycolic acid is 240. Some of the amino acids produced are extremely low percentage compared with non-biologic product proportions - see the chart.

See the rest of the evidence of different synthesis experiments in different environments in documented in chapter 3.

Chapter 4 is entitled "The myth of of the prebiotic soup" shows much evidence from chemistry.

I will post just one example in this post. From page 48:[HCN is Hydrogen Cyanide]

"Hydrolysis of HCN and Nitriles (RCN)
According to Ponnamperuma, hydrogen cyanide may be "the most important intermediate leading to the origin of life."29 It is an ingredient for the production of amino acids in the Strecker synthesis (see Chapter 3). It also is considered a starting material in the synthesis of adenine and a host of other biomolecules, as shown in figure 4-1. The value of HCN in the chemical evolution scenario is enhanced by the fact that it escapes rapid destruction in the atmosphere by ultraviolet irradiation.30
....
It is the ubiquitous water molecule, however, that is the main obstacle to the reaction involving HCN and its nitrile derivatives.31 For example, HCN adds water to its triple bond to form formamide, which, upon further hydrolysis, produces formic acid."

This is why formic acid, not amino acids. is the primary chemical reaction product in synthesis experiments including Miller-Urey.

This is an example of basic chemistry ignored by chemical evolutionists. Simply: HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid.

Page 50 goes into more detail as to the destruction of chemical pathways to molecules required for life.

That is for my next post.

Those aren't the primordial gases that were available in the link I provided -- N2, CO2, O2, H2, CH4, NH3.

If I understood alang1216 correctly, he had CO2, H2, CH4, and H2O from his Carbon Cycle. I didn't know if he was going to add his O2. Regardless, just the CO2, H2, CH4, and H20 exploded. That probably formed O2 as per his chart.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

Go ahead and add the early gases which you claim. What happens to the Miller-Urey experiment?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

I give up, what happens to the Miller-Urey experiment? More to the point, why should we care?

I am sure you will know the answer within the next 120 years.
Atheism is a dangerous path.
If you don't believe in God, God doesn't believe in you.
As a Noachide, you are not required to practice any religious activities.

Ooooh... A magical threat! You gypsies and your curses....

 

[james bond]

I’m sure you believe you did, JB.

So, do you believe Miller-Urey? I guess God created the primordial Earth gases. Anyway, you can't explain it either.

What gases did you have during early Earth?

 

[ding]

I’m sure you believe you did, JB.

So, do you believe Miller-Urey? I guess God created the primordial Earth gases. Anyway, you can't explain it either.

What gases did you have during early Earth?

I’m not the droid you are looking for.

 

[james bond]

An example is HCN (1 atom Hydrogen, 1 atom carbon, 1 atom Nitrogen). Hydrogen was produced without stars, supernovae produced carbon, nitrogen and oxygen (the O in H2O). But the reactions of HCN with H2O do not lead to molecules required for life in significant proportions. An intelligent chemist is needed to isolate/select each step towards simple and complex amino acids and to biologically important dipeptides to polypeptide to proteins.

This is atheist science. At least, you can explain it better than others here such as ding who does not know what he is talking about. While it's may be good exercise for the intellect, it did not happen. An intelligent chemist will not be able "isolate/select each step towards simple and complex amino acids from dipeptides to polypeptide to proteins." Life does not happen like that or else we would have seen it already. I even tried to point alang1216 to the Miller-Urey experiment but he couldn't even manage flash player to do it let alone understand it.

 

[james bond]

I’m sure you believe you did, JB.

So, do you believe Miller-Urey? I guess God created the primordial Earth gases. Anyway, you can't explain it either.

What gases did you have during early Earth?

I’m not the droid you are looking for.

You are a droid, but I wouldn't buy you. Brain and intellect malfunction. Off to the dung heap with you. Maybe that would be a better handle for you.

 

[james bond]

Of course, that's not a scientific idea. I can find "evidence for the definition" of unicorns in children's books.

Silly red herring. First, determining spirits exist would not be evidence for gods. Second, this argument is prima facie absurd. Scientists get famous by discovering and proving ideas that prove everyone else wrong. This statement by you shows abject ignorance of and, frankly, contempt for the scientific process. Which is to be expected from a frustrated religious person whose dogma is at odds with our scientifically gained, empirical knowledge.

Listen up:

Once you have entered magic into the discussion, all possibility of evidence goes out the window. You could never find deterministic evidence for or against magic. Ever. So the moment you accepted magic, you denied yourself access to even the idea of evidence. So stop trying to join two ideas that can never be compatible.

Newtonian wouldn't do anything like that. It's you who is guilty of the absurdity, magic, sky fairy, and the rest of the ding heap . Good science just goes over your pin head.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

But really, you should ask yourself this: why would any God torture people because of their sincere beliefs?

Because that is the one commandment God wants us to obey -- that his Son Jesus died for our sins. Today, it's a positive test.

With Adam and Eve, God gave them a negative test of not eating fruit from a specific tree in heaven.

So why would God put today's non-believers and sinners to the Lake of Fire over it. Because God the Father hates sin and cannot be with sin. The non-believers reap what they sow by being separated from God. Jesus cleanses our sins and thus the only way to heaven.

As for the pain of burning in hell forever, we do not know what the Lake of Fire is really all about. It is a prophecy and propecies are allegory. For example, the entrance to heaven is not the pearly gate or wide gate, but the narrow gate and door. The door refers to Jesus and we go through the door and go on the narrow path. The others take the easy path and think their path is the way to heaven or salvation.

But didn't God create EVERYTHING? Why would He create a world in which sin is even possible? So, didn't He create sin, too?

Why would he?

Why would God create sin? How should I know? But if He created the universe exactly the way he wanted it, why didn't he create a universe where there is no sin?

 

[Bruce Daniels]

But really, you should ask yourself this: why would any God torture people because of their sincere beliefs?

Because that is the one commandment God wants us to obey -- that his Son Jesus died for our sins. Today, it's a positive test.

With Adam and Eve, God gave them a negative test of not eating fruit from a specific tree in heaven.

So why would God put today's non-believers and sinners to the Lake of Fire over it. Because God the Father hates sin and cannot be with sin. The non-believers reap what they sow by being separated from God. Jesus cleanses our sins and thus the only way to heaven.

As for the pain of burning in hell forever, we do not know what the Lake of Fire is really all about. It is a prophecy and propecies are allegory. For example, the entrance to heaven is not the pearly gate or wide gate, but the narrow gate and door. The door refers to Jesus and we go through the door and go on the narrow path. The others take the easy path and think their path is the way to heaven or salvation.

But didn't God create EVERYTHING? Why would He create a world in which sin is even possible? So, didn't He create sin, too?

Why would he?

Why would God create sin? How should I know? But if He created the universe exactly the way he wanted it, why didn't he create a universe where there is no sin?

 

[Bruce Daniels]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

One simple question to stymie yours, "how do you know this"?

It's what I have concluded from the evidence. For some reason, I'm skeptical about some invisible supernatural force...

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Did you know that the central nervous system of every mammal species got larger over time?

I didn't know that and I'm not sure what it means.

It means that very nature of existence is to create intelligence. It is unavoidable. It is not an accident.

That's ridiculous. The nature of existence is to continue to exist. That's it. If more intelligence facilitates that, then more intelligence will probably develop. But life on Earth existed for about 3 billion years before it even had a brain.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Maybe so. However, I've never met a Christian who didn't think others would be going to hell but not them.

Basically, we know via the Holy Spirit. That said, Blaise Pascal wasn't sure if he would be "annihilated or unhappy forever." I think he knew.

Actually, you know no such thing.

As with religion and ‘god,’ the notion of a ‘holy spirit’ is a creation of man; just as there’s no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, so too is there neither heaven nor hell.

Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of heavens and earth - not Hell. We do not believe in the doctrine of eternal torment in Hell Fire. But the stars of the heavens do exist.

One evidence of God's existence is the Bible itself - its accuracy.

The origin of life required all the necessary molecules to be in the same place at the same time - this is impossible by chance. So, what was God's spirit doing going to and fro over earth's primordial waters in darkness (and, from science: hot) as per Genesis 1:2

"The origin of life required all the necessary molecules to be in the same place at the same time - this is impossible by chance." How do you know that's impossible?

 

[Bruce Daniels]

I think there is. I don't believe any human knows who or what God is exactly, but IMO there's too much evidence to discount the existence of a God or Gods.

There is no evidence that proves the existence of a God or Gods. My argument is: There is no God. The onus is on YOU to PROVE that God exists.

The existence of God isn't provable in the mathematical or legal sense. So like I said I don't claim to know who or what God is. I just see a lot of evidence that supports God or the Gods existence.

I think there is. I don't believe any human knows who or what God is exactly, but IMO there's too much evidence to discount the existence of a God or Gods.

There is no evidence that proves the existence of a God or Gods. My argument is: There is no God. The onus is on YOU to PROVE that God exists.

The evidence is circumstantial, but there is a lot of it. Kind of like the O.J. case.

And yet you don't cite any evidence at all.

The evidence is all around you.

What? The universe? That's your evidence for God? The universe proves that IT exists. It proves nothing about God.

Actually, it does. The truth is that our universe has laws and properties that could not have been produced by chance. You cannot have laws without a lawgiver:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

You claim that "The truth is that our universe has laws and properties that could not have been produced by chance. You cannot have laws without a lawgiver." Says who? What the hell do you know about how the universe was set up? Oh, wait -- it's in the Bible, right? Well, if you want to believe a book that was written by HUMANS 2,000 and more years ago, that's fine. I'd rather go with more recent discoveries.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

One simple question to stymie yours, "how do you know this"?

It's what I have concluded from the evidence. For some reason, I'm skeptical about some invisible supernatural force...

So you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If not, what do you believe regarding the creation of the universe and what evidence do you provide to support this?