The only viable challenge to a proof of God is in answering this question:
"Why can't there be eternal non-living materials that everything came from?"
Non-living to living hasn't been recorded in a lab, or an exhaustive theory allowing it to even be conceived. What I mean is; there is no theory where we're like "oh, if we could just produce this much electricity, we're gold, but we can't yet."
If a materialist can recreate this scenario through mechanical means, showing a plausible scenario for this to happen (for extra credit); they win (I guess?). So non-living to living is the Holy Grail, so to speak.
At the present time, unless a mechanicalist can do what hasn't been done or imagined; Materialism rests on the faith that non-living to living is possible.
Ironically, the christian way also requires faith that non-living to living is possible.
1 Corinthians 15:10 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
We both are looking to complete our reasoning, but our limited resources require us to make a leap of faith.
Non-living to living hasn't been recorded in a lab, or an exhaustive theory allowing it to even be conceived. What I mean is; there is no theory where we're like "oh, if we could just produce this much electricity, we're gold, but we can't yet."
If a materialist can recreate this scenario through mechanical means, showing a plausible scenario for this to happen (for extra credit); they win (I guess?). So non-living to living is the Holy Grail, so to speak.
At the present time, unless a mechanicalist can do what hasn't been done or imagined; Materialism rests on the faith that non-living to living is possible.
We don't KNOW how life came from chemicals but we certainly have reasonable models and theories
We don't KNOW how life came from chemicals but we certainly have reasonable models and theories
I haven't watched the vid yet, but I sum the theory up as, "try to sound as confusing as possible to make it sound like it's just over your head, but we're basically there."
Would you agree that if the materialist cannot crack all the coded words, and truly comprehend the theory himself (even if true), he's still going on faith to accept it?
Video or text, your choice. We're already at the stage where we can create synthetic DNA from 4 bottles of chemicals and some yeast. Give us a few more years, and the life from non life will be made scientifically irrelevant.
I haven't watched the vid yet, but I sum the theory up as, "try to sound as confusing as possible to make it sound like it's just over your head, but we're basically there."
Being hard to understand doesn't make it untrue. You accept that nuclear bombs work, but if you were told the detail of how it works you may well find it very confusing.
Quote:
Would you agree that if the materialist cannot crack all the coded words, and truly comprehend the theory himself (even if true), he's still going on faith to accept it?
You're asking if I agree that a layman accepting a scientific theory that he doesn't understand is taking things on faith? It's a good question. To give a full answer we'd have to get into a lot of detail about the difference and definitions of faith and knowledge. If you want to discuss the difference it would probably be better to start a new thread, but I'd certainly agree that blindly accepting the word of a scientist without considering the evidence is taking things on faith.
You're asking if I agree that a layman accepting a scientific theory that he doesn't understand is taking things on faith? It's a good question. To give a full answer we'd have to get into a lot of detail about the difference and definitions of faith and knowledge. If you want to discuss the difference it would probably be better to start a new thread, but I'd certainly agree that blindly accepting the word of a scientist without considering the evidence is taking things on faith.
There is a very key difference here. Suppose you have two experts in their fields: a scientist and a priest/minister/religious scholar. They teach the layman, who otherwise doesn't really get what they're talking about. He has to take their positions "on faith." But here's the thing: the priest is also taking his propositions on faith--he's merely come up with a rationalized position for why he thinks his faith makes sense. The scientist is not taking his propositions on faith--they are either demonstrable, or contribute adequate predictions under a model that under Bayes' Theorem makes them more likely to be true.
With enough study, the layman can understand things on the level of the scientist, and can see his work demonstrated empirically. Regardless of how much study he undertakes, the layman can no more prove the existence of God/the resurrection/transubstantiation/divine inspiration than the priest can. He can only invent cuter and cuter rationalizations.
When you "take something on faith" from a scientist, you aren't really trusting him per se; you're trusting the process. When you taking something on faith from a minister, you're most definitely trusting his particular insights.
There is a very key difference here. Suppose you have two experts in their fields: a scientist and a priest/minister/religious scholar. They teach the layman, who otherwise doesn't really get what they're talking about. He has to take their positions "on faith." But here's the thing: the priest is also taking his propositions on faith--he's merely come up with a rationalized position for why he thinks his faith makes sense.
Priests suck, Jesus and God agree imo (to say it simply). "Call no one teacher, for one is your teacher" and much more...but let's not get too carried away.
When you say "ah but the priest is rationalizing", all you're really saying is that he isn't rational. But that kinda is the question at hand. (even though I've already agreed that he's a little suspect )
I guess really, I don't put it past a scientist to be part of a conspiracy, since the implications for this overall question (non life to life) have a huge impact on law, and therefore money.
Priests suck, Jesus and God agree imo (to say it simply). "Call no one teacher, for one is your teacher" and much more...but let's not get too carried away.
When you say "ah but the priest is rationalizing", all you're really saying is that he isn't rational. But that kinda is the question at hand. (even though I've already agreed that he's a little suspect )
I guess really, I don't put it past a scientist to be part of a conspiracy, since the implications for this overall question (non life to life) have a huge impact on law, and therefore money.
Why does a creator need to be of unlimited power? How much "power" was needed to create a universe? An unknowable amount, in perhaps unknowable units - but surely still a finite amount, even if it is staggeringly large? So, why can't a creator of the universe just be sufficiently powerful? Other than the obvious (i.e. it no longer matches the definition of an almighty God)?
I’m not sure if the creation of the world requires power at all. I mean, if there’s nothing that can delimit the creative act, why would power be required to overcome what is essentially the absence of resistance?
Can't we use this exact same form of argument to prove the opposite conclusion?
The non-existence of God is either logically necessary or logically impossible.
The logically impossible is not conceivable.
If the non-existence of God is conceivable, then the non-existence of God is logically necessary.
The non-existence of God is conceivable.
Therefore, the non-existence of God is logically necessary.
I don’t think you can make (4) work without rejecting the theist’s definition of God. That is, I don’t think the non-existence of God (a self-caused, self-sustaining being whose very essence is to be) is conceivable.
Well, this is the question that divides materialists from ...bible version of God believer, essentially.
The bible believer should believe in The Law (Torah) (Matt 5:17). In the torah, legislation is prohibited (deut 4:2), the land is divided (num. 33:54), there are no taxes (besides providing food for the feasts).
To go back to my suspicion for a second, the same incentive, or motive for the scientist (mechanicalist), is likely there for the church leader as well. All kinds of professors (prophets? ) are suspect.
Over time, all of society has been infected, the law has been doubted, the believer is declared insane.
All on the mere possibility made to seem as fact, that the non living can become living.
Why? Morals decline as people don't know what is good or bad. They follow their flesh (forgetting their soul), and are conned out of everything.
Now instead of everyone (~) owning land, only a few do as materialism opened the door for "democracy", giving fools the right to have a say in legislation. (which is debatable now at this point, whether they even have that)
How did the Queen of the (United) Kingdom take an oath to uphold the laws of God (during the coronation ceremony), then give all legislative power to the House of Lords and Commons. (Baal worship imo, little lords) Now instead of her same allotment as everyone else, she's the richest woman in the world.
Another question is who funds these scientists? Do those guys own way more land than is allotted as well? In The Law, attaining multiple properties is doable, but the land has to be returned on the Jubilee every 50 years. So there is incentive, but not monopolization.
Back to the Queen, what did that joker do on the Jubilee? She gave the people like 3 days off from work? Lol.
Last edited by SprayandPray; 06-10-2012 at 06:39 PM.
Reason: slight touches
Two Plus Two
)
Linear Mode
