Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!

by Silent_Scream 170 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Silent_Scream

  No one can ever go to a nicely built house and claim it literally came out of nowhere.

  I could take all the elements of the house (wood, metal, glass, etc) and find origins elsewhere, but to come together in something as well crafted and able to be utilized as a house, people would think I'm crazy if I said no one built it.

  There's no proof someone was there, cut the wood, put up walls, painted, etc, in a sense. The proof is in the building itself.

  Much less things as complicated as cells and DNA and many things around us.

  So, for some, it is completely logical and sensible to believe there is an intelligent designer. It's not "magic" as claims those who like to belittle the argument. Science to us is only a way of understanding the things around us and functions, not defining.

  Atheists may not agree, and that's fine. But it's not void of evidence as you all so claim. You just view evidence differently.
• 

  sizemik

  My request was simple.

  I see . . .

  True, myself nor any other theist cannot provide scientific evidences for a Creator.

  But neither can atheists provide scientific evidence of any alternative of origin of life.

  Like you said - SO WHAT? (yet atheists jump down the throat of anyone believing in a creator, at least here on JWN) I don't like hypocrisy.

  Maybe your request was not that simple after all?

  If you genuinely want answers . . . there are better places to look than here.
• 

  Silent_Scream

  no one has evidence, that is the point

  AGREED!

  So why is there so many atheistic/theistic arguments?

  Seems like many ain't get the memo.
• 

  Silent_Scream

  My request was simple.

  Receiving an answer, not so much.
• 

  sizemik

  So why is there so many atheistic/theistic arguments?

  If this is your real problem . . . then why did you start another one?
• 

  Silent_Scream

  If this is your real problem . . . then why did you start another one?

  It wasn't my intent to prove there is a God.

  Like I been saying, many feel they got the upper hand because all their ideas are based on evidence. And that is not the case. There is a serious hole in atheistic thinking that some can seem to patch. Yet, it seems to be a huge key in dismissing a creator.

  It's like "I don't know how life got started, but I know it wasn't a God". That's contradictory, and just as bad as people believing in God while dismissing scientific reality.

  If any believe in a Creator, it's based on reality, and not some "hope" that in the future man will hopefully figure out how it all started, especially when it is illogical against science itself to believe life somehow came from nonlife.
• 

  jam

  OK, I hope this make sense, Is there A pure nothing.

  Consider being of pure nonbeing, it,s contradictory.
• 

  sizemik

  It's like "I don't know how life got started, but I know it wasn't a God". That's contradictory, and just as bad as people believing in God while dismissing scientific reality.

  If any where to think like that . . . then your point is valid.

  Speaking only for myself it's like "I don't know how life got started, but I don't see any evidence for it being the work of an identifiable God" No contradiction. Also, no valid reason for not questioning theistic claims.
• 

  Flat_Accent

  We don't know how life got here.

  What we do know, in detail, is the process by which simple life became complex life through random mutation and natural selection. So to me, the idea of simple life being formed under the right conditions is not hard to envision.

  You however, posit an magic man in the sky that popped life into existence.

  I claim nothing, instead I tacitly admit I don't know.

  You claim God, yet you supply no evidence of this, so therefore I reject your claim and have no reason to change from my initial position - Agnostic Atheism.

  If anything this thread should be the other way round.
• 

  still thinking

  Silent_Scream....I really think you are either confusing, or purposely confusing the issues of belief/evidence in god and scientific evidence.

  Trying to say that science does not provide evidence as opposed to believers not providing evidence is a false premise.

  With science, you can provide tangable evidence that leads you to a conclusion...evidence that is available to anyone who chooses to research it.

  With belief....the evidence is strictly personal...ie hearing god speak...other than that there is nothing tangible to base a belief on. You can look at old writings...but then we can do that with science...and the difference is, science is always more than happy to be proven wrong to come to understanding...belief is not....once you don't find enough evidence to continue believng...there is nowhere left for it to go. You can alter your personal understanding of your god...but surely if god is truth...he would not keep changing in the minds of men. There is no unification with belief...you get to choose what you believe...science simply doesn't work that way...there is always someone who want to prove you wrong and that is encouraged....religions and believers do not all unite to compare beliefs and come to a better understanding of god and to benefit other religion by trying to prove one another wrong. Individuals may like to try to do that....but that is not evidence...that is individual opinion.

  Given the number of different deities there have been since mankinds existence...it is pretty difficult to find evidence for one particular god. And be honest...when you choose a god to have faith in, is it a choice made by thoroughly researching every other god available? or is it just the god you personally have heard of or think you KNOW a little about.